APHC010220382026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] THURSDAY, THE 23rd DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1243 OF 2026 Between: 1. VALLEPALLI DURGA PRASAD, S/o. Srinu, Aged about 36 years. Pvt., Employee, R/o. D.No. 1-108, R.C.C Building, Thantikonda (Village), Thantikonda Gram Panchayat, Gokavaram Mandal, East Godavari. ...Petitioner AND 1. MALLIDI NAGI REDDY, S/o. Sura Reddy, Aged about 51 years, Occ Business, R/o. Gowrammapeta, Vedurupaka, Rayavaram Mandal, East Godavari 2. Dr Vale Kiran Kumar, S/o. Surya Sekhar Rao, Aged about 51 years, Occ Doctor, R/o. Flat F4, Balaji Paradise Apartment, Savitri Nagar, Hukumpeta, Rajahmundry Rural Mandal, East Godavari. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : M SRI ATCHYUT Counsel for the Respondents: B.SUDHAKAR KUMAR Counsel for the Respondents: VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA 2 The Court made the following ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed to set aside the impugned office objections raised in E.A.SR.No.1084 of 2026 in E.P.No.25 of 2024 in O.S.No.2 of 2018 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajamahendravaram. 2) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material on record. 3) Petitioner, a 3rd party/claim petitioner in the above mentioned suit, filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The said petition/application was returned with office objections on 07.03.2026. After complying with the office objections, the same was re- presented on 10.04.2026. However, it was again returned on 17.04.2026. 4) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia submits that when the objections are complied with, learned Executing Court, instead of numbering the application, again returned the same simply mentioning that previous objections are not complied properly. He submits that no opportunity was afforded at least to make submissions to satisfy the Court about the compliance of the objections by the petitioner. He submits that under the said circumstances, having left no other alternative, the petitioner is constrained to file the present revision petition. 5) Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the present Revision Petition is not maintainable, in as much as no steps have 3 been taken before the Executing Court, much less a request to hear the matter “for orders on office objections”. A perusal of the docket, which is returned on 17.04.2026, makes it clear that no request was made by the petitioner to take up the matter for consideration on office objections. 6) At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition returned with objections would be re-presented before the learned Executing Court with a request to hear the matter on office objections, therefore appropriate orders in this regard may be passed. 7) Considering the submissions made, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to present returned application by complying with the objections and with a request to hear the matter. If such course of action is adopted, the learned Executing Court shall take up the matter and consider the objections by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders thereon. No costs. 8) Consequently, Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date:23.07.2026 Ssv Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 4 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CRP NO: 1243 OF 2026 Date: 23.07.2026 Ssv