APHC010601252025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] MONDAY, THE 27th DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3107/2025 Between: 1. VENKAT SATHYA KANESH GOIL, S/O. GOLI DORABBAYI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O. PRESENTLY R/O. NEW DELHI, PERMANENT R/O. D.NO.3-11, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, VETLAPALEM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 2. GOLI VIJAYALAKSHMI, , W/O.G.DORABBAI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.3-11, NEAR GANAPATHI TEMPLE, VETLAPALEM, KAKINADA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. YENDRU SATHIRAJU, (DIED PER LRS) 2. YENDRU SATHEMMA, (DIED PER LRS) 3. YENDRU KANNAYYA, (DIED PER LRS) 4. YENDRU VENKATRAO, S/O. LATE Y.SATHIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOOR NO. 12-11, MARKET VEEDHI, VETLAPALEM VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 5. MUTYALA BULLEMMAYI, W/O.M.RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.VALLURU VILLAGE, KAPILESWARAPURAM MANDAL ALAMURU. 6. MATLAPARTHY LAKSHMI, (DIED PER LR'S).6. 7. BIKKINA SURYANARAYANA, (DIED PER LRS) 8. MARINA RAMANAYYAMMA, W/O. M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O.NARSAPURAPUPETA VILLAGE, RAMACHANDRAPURAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 9. POLINA HYMAVATHI, W/O. P.SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.VANGALAPUDI VILLAGE, SEETHANAGARAM MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 10. ORUGANTHI SATYAVATHI, W/O. O.SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. VISAKHAPATNAM. 11. NEKKANTI BEDRINARAYANAMMA, , W/O.M.SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O.NEW JERSEY, USA. 12. YENDRU SRINIVASARAO, S/O. LATE Y.KANNAYYA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURE, R/O. DOOR NO. 12-11, MARKET VEEDHI, VETLAPALEM VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 13. BIKKINA JYOTHI, W/O. BIKKINA SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO. 12-11, MARKET VEEDHI, VETLAPALEM VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL KAKINADA DISTRICT. 14. KORA ANNAPURNA, D/O. LATE B. SURYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO. 12-11, MARKET VEEDHI, VETLAPALEM VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL, KAKINADA DISTRICT. 15. PALACHARLA SURYA MANIKYAMBA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. DOOR NO. 12-11, MARKET VEEDHI, VETLAPALEM VILLAGE, SAMALKOTA MANDAL KAKINADA DISTRICT. 16. GOLI KANNAYYA, (DIED PER LRS) 17. GOLI SATHIRAJU, (DIED PER LRS) 18. GOLI RAMA RAO, (DIED PER LRS) 19. GOLI BHAVANI, W/O. LATE G.SATHIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE R/O. KAMALAPURI COLONY, HYDERABAD. 20. GOLI SASANKA MOHAN, , S/O. LATE G.SATHIRAJU AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O.KAMALAPURI COLONY, HYDERABAD. 21. GOLI SATYAVATHI, W/O. LATE G.RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS, OCC HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO.8-10-6. GANDHI NAGAR, KAKINADA. 22. GOLI SEKHAR BABU, S/O. LATE RAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.8-10-6. GANDHI NAGAR, KAKINADA. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to begs to present this Memorandum of Revision Petition against the Order dated 31/10/2025 passed in EP.No.179 of 2008 in OS.No.175 of 1987 on the file of Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant leave to the Petitioners to file the present CRP against the Order dated 31/10/2025 in Execution Petition No. 179 of 2008 in OS No. 175 of 1987 and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the Certified Copy of the Order dated 31/10/2025 in Execution Petition No. 179 of 2008 in OS No. 175 of 1987 on the file of the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and pass IA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including delivery of the Suit Property pursuant to the Order dated 31/10/2025 in Execution Petition No. 179 of 2008 in OS No. 175 of 1987 on the file of the Second Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. M R K CHAKRAVARTHY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. The Court made the following order: Heard Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 2. The proposed parties in E.P.No.179 of 2008 in O.S.No.175 of 1987 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, filed the above revision against the order dated 31.10.2025. 3. The deceased 1st respondent filed O.S.No.175 of 1987 against (1) Goli Kannaya, (2) Goli Sathiraju and (3) Goli Ramarao, seeking a declaration of title in respect of „A‟, „B‟ and „C‟ Schedule properties, for recovery of possession by evicting the defendants therefrom, and for grant of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the opening in the northern compound wall in between plaint „B‟ and „C‟ schedule properties and put up the doorway in its former position. On contest, the suit was decreed, partly, on 12.10.1995. 4. The operative portion of the decree reads as follows: “In the result, the suit is decreed in part with proportionate costs (1) declaring the title and ownership of the plaintiff to plaint „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties (2) directing the defendants to deliver possession of the plaint „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties to the plaintiff (3) granting a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the door-way in the compound wall situated to between plaint „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties; and (4) directing the defendants to pay future profits from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivering possession of the plaint „A‟ and „B‟ schedule properties to the Plaintiff, the quantum of which has to be ascertained in separate proceedings on an application by the plaintiff. Rest of the suit claim is dismissed.” 5. The defendants in the suit filed A.S.No.1146 of 1996 on the file of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad. The plaintiffs filed cross- objections. Both the appeal and cross-objections were dismissed by judgment dated 22.11.2005. 6. The defendants jointly filed SLP(C) No.9401 of 2006 before the Hon‟ble Apex Court. Pending the SLP, Goli Kannaya/1st defendant died, and his legal representatives i.e., Goli Vijayalakshmi, Goli Dorabbayi and Goli Venkata Sathya Kanesh, were brought on record. Goli Sathiraju/2nd defendant also died; however, his legal representatives were not brought on record. Goli Ramarao/3rd defendant also died and his legal representatives Smt. Goli Satayavathi and Goli Sekhar Babu, were brought on record. Of course, the plaintiff also died, and legal representatives were brought on record. However, it is not necessary to mention all their names. The plaintiff also filed a separate SLP(C) No.19919 of 2006. 7. Since the legal representatives of Goli Sathiraju/2nd defendant were not brought on record, the appeal against Goli Sathiraju stands abated. The order of the Hon‟ble Apex Court dated 24.07.2009 reads as follows: “I.A.No.2 in SLP(C) No.9401/2006 is for deletion of petitioner no.2 who is stated to have died on 21/2/2006 and his LRs have not chosen to come on record. Hence, the matter abates insofar as petitioner no.2 is concerned. I.A.No.2 is allowed. Petitioner no.2 in SLP(C) No.9401/2006 is the respondent no.2 in the connected SLP(C) No.19919/2006. SLP(C) No.6401/2006 insofar as petitioner no.2 is concerned stands abated. In view thereof, petitioner is permitted to delete respondent no.2 from the array of parties. I.A.No.3 is allowed” 8. Before the Hon‟ble Apex Court, the learned counsel appeared for the appellant contended that the abatement of appeal in so far as the 2nd appellant does not abate the entire appeal. However, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that, even though the appeal was abated against the 2nd appellant, the other appellants still be entitled to prosecute the appeal was rejected. 9. The Hon‟ble Apex Court further observed that the statement made by the appellants/defendants in paragraph 11 of the written statement that the schedule „A‟ property has fallen to the share of the appellant No.1 (defendant No.1) and schedule „B‟ property has fallen to the share of appellant No.2 (defendant No.2) but the assertion has no foundation/basis and there was no issue framed by the trial Court and admittedly no finding has been rendered in this regard. In the absence of any finding rendered by the trial Court, the self- serving assertion made by the defendants/appellants cannot be evidence of the fact that the suit schedule properties have been divided and demarcated among the defendants/appellants. Eventually, the SLPs were dismissed as abated on 26.04.2019. 10. The decree holder filed E.P.No.179 of 2008. In the execution petition, as seen from the cause title, it was noted that Goli Kannaya (died), Goli Sathiraju (died) and Goli Ramarao (died). The legal representatives of Goli Sathiraju were added as respondents 4 and 5, and the legal representatives of Goli Ramarao were added as respondents 6 and 7. However, the legal representatives of Goli Kannaya were not added to the Execution Petition. 11. The legal representatives of the Goli Kannaya filed E.A.No.241 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking to implead themselves as judgment debtors 13 to 19 in the E.P. proceedings. The said application was returned by the lower Court on 10.07.2025 with the endorsement, “how this petition is maintainable to be explained”. However, the same was not re-submitted. 12. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.A.No.136 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC seeking police aid to the Court Ameen to implement the decree. The Executing Court issued a delivery warrant on 02.04.2025. The Court Ameen returned the warrant with an endorsement on 11.04.2025; that he went to the property along with the decree holders with the mediators for delivering the property, but the men of the respondents obstructed and refused to vacate. Recording the same, the executing Court allowed E.A.No.136 of 2025. 13. It seems that, challenging the order dated 22.08.2025, the petitioners herein filed a civil revision petition. However, since the warrant was returned, no further steps were taken in the said civil revision petition. The docket order dated 12.09.2025 in the execution petition discloses that “Batta paid with petition and allowed, issue fresh delivery warrant along with police aid call on 26.09.2025”. The daily status dated 31.10.2025 in E.P.No.179 of 2008 discloses that “At request issue fresh delivery warrant along with police aid call on 14.11.2025”. 14. Assailing the docket order dated 31.10.2025, the petitioners filed the above revision and filed I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking leave since the petitioners are not parties to the execution petition. 15. On 07.11.2025, leave petition was ordered. An interim order of status quo was granted on 07.11.2025. Notice was ordered in the civil revision petition. The order of status quo is being extended from time to time. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the decree holders failed to bring the legal representatives of the deceased Goli Kannaya on record as party respondents to the execution petition. The decree holder ought to have impleaded the legal representatives of the deceased Goli Kannaya. Having impleaded only the legal representatives of the 2nd judgment debtor, the decree holder, in collusion, is trying to evict the petitioners. 17. Thus, as seen from the narration supra, Goli Kannaya/1st defendant died pending the SLP before the Hon‟ble Apex Court, and the petitioners were already brought on record as appellants before the Hon‟ble Apex Court. 18. In fact, the petitioners filed E.A.No.241 of 2019 seeking to implead themselves as judgment debtors 18 and 19. However, the application was returned. Without complying with the objections raised by the Executing Court or challenging the return, the petitioners filed the present revision assailing the docket proceedings dated 31.10.2025. 19. If the decree holders do not take appropriate steps to implead all the judgment debtors, the revision petitioners can avail remedies available under the Code. Of course, the petitioners are legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant who suffered the decree, and confirmed by the Apex Court. The petitioners cannot set up any independent title or claim being the legal representatives of the deceased 1st defendant. In fact, the revision petitioners, having filed E.A.No.241 of 2019, however, did not prosecute the same. The present revision, filed challenging the docket order dated 31.10.2025, is, in the considered opinion of this Court, not maintainable. 20. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court doesn‟t find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 31.10.2025 in E.P.No.179 of 2008 in O.S.No.175 of 1987 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, warranting interference. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 22. However, this order will not preclude the revision petitioners from prosecuting E.A.No.241 of 2019 As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 27.07.2026 SNI 59 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3107 of 2025 Dated: 27.07.2026 SNI