Date of reserved for orders : 19.06.2026 Date of pronouncement : 31.07 Date of uploading : APHC010052142026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 31 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 451of 2026 Between: 1. C.RAVINDRA REDDY, S/o.C.NARAYANA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESID PENUMURU POST AND 1. G.JAGANADHA REDDY, S/ AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARAKAMPALLI VILLAGE, PENUMURU POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT 2. C.JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S/O LATE AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 3. B.SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O LATE B.MUNIRATHNAM REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 4. Y.MOHAN REDDY, S/O ABOUT 45 YEARS, 5. Y.MADHAVA REDDY, S/O ABOUT 43 YEARS, 6. Y BHASKAR REDDY, S/O ABOUT 77 YEARS, 7. G RAGHUNADHA REDDY, S/O LATE G.MUNASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 8. G GOVINDHA REDDY, S/O LATE G.MUNASWAMY REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT M VILLAGE, RAMANAIDU PALLI POST, G.D.NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 9. SMT G SREEMATHI, W/O G. RAGHUNADHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. 10. G PATTABI REDDY, S/O LATE G.DORASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS. Date of reserved for orders : 19.06.2026 of pronouncement : 31.07.2026 Date of uploading : 31.07.2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE 31st DAY OF JULY 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 451of 2026 C.RAVINDRA REDDY, S/o.C.NARAYANA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARAKAMPALLI, PENUMURU POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND JAGANADHA REDDY, S/o.LATE G. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARAKAMPALLI VILLAGE, PENUMURU POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT- JAYACHANDRA REDDY, S/O LATE KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O LATE B.MUNIRATHNAM REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, MOHAN REDDY, S/O.LATE Y.RAJAGOPAL REDDY, AGED MADHAVA REDDY, S/O.LATE Y.RAJAGOPAL REDDY, AGED Y BHASKAR REDDY, S/O.LATE Y.MUNASWAMY REDDY, AGED G RAGHUNADHA REDDY, S/O LATE G.MUNASWAMY REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, G GOVINDHA REDDY, S/O LATE G.MUNASWAMY REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT MOTHARANGANA PALLI VILLAGE, RAMANAIDU PALLI POST, G.D.NELLORE MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, SMT G SREEMATHI, W/O G. RAGHUNADHA REDDY, AGED G PATTABI REDDY, S/O LATE G.DORASWAMY REDDY, AGED IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.RAVINDRA REDDY, S/o.C.NARAYANA REDDY, HINDU, AT KARAKAMPALLI, ...PETITIONER LATE G. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARAKAMPALLI VILLAGE, 517 126. KRISHNA REDDY, HINDU, SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O LATE B.MUNIRATHNAM REDDY, LATE Y.RAJAGOPAL REDDY, AGED LATE Y.RAJAGOPAL REDDY, AGED LATE Y.MUNASWAMY REDDY, AGED G RAGHUNADHA REDDY, S/O LATE G.MUNASWAMY REDDY, G GOVINDHA REDDY, S/O LATE G.MUNASWAMY REDDY, HINDU, OTHARANGANA PALLI VILLAGE, RAMANAIDU PALLI POST, G.D.NELLORE MANDAL, SMT G SREEMATHI, W/O G. RAGHUNADHA REDDY, AGED G PATTABI REDDY, S/O LATE G.DORASWAMY REDDY, AGED 2 11. T MOGILAMMA, W/O LATE T.MORKONDAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 12. SMT C.THULASAMMA, W/o. C.NARAYANA REDDUY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, RESIDING AT KARAKAMPALLI, PENUMURU POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 13. Y.SWARNAKUMARI, W/O LATE Y.BHASKAR REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, 14. P KRISHNA REDDY, S/o.LATE P. CHINNAMA REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT PENUMURU VILLAGE AND POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 15. K SUBRAMANYAM REDDY, S/o. LATE K. SANKAR REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT PENUMURU VILLAGE AND POST AND MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 16. G DEVARAJULU, , S/O GOVINDASWAMY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, RESIDING AT ENUGUKONDAIAH PALLI, PENUMURU MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT, 17. T KUMARSWAMY, S/O LATE T. MORKONDAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, 18. T MADHAN GOPAL, S / O LATE T. PAPPAIAH CHETTY, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 19. K SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/ O LATE K.JAYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, 20. K VASUDEVA REDDY, S / O LATE K.J AYARAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, 21. M RAMURTHY, S / O LATE M. VENKATAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 22. M BALAJI, S/O LATE M. VENKATAMUNI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, DEFENDANTS NO. 1 AND 3 TO 7, 9TO 13 AND 17 TO 22 ARE RESIDING AT KARAKAMPALLI VILLAGE, PENUMURU POST AND M NDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT. (R2 TO R22 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES) ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.SURESH KUMAR REDDY KALAVA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. Mr.G.KRISHNAPRASAD ROYAL 3 The Court made the following Order: Petitioner / 2nd defendant in O.S.No.50 of 2020 on the file of the Court of V Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chittoor, aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.608 of 2025, filed the present Revision Petition. 2. 1st respondent / plaintiff filed the said suit seeking a decree restraining the defendants, their men etc., from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, as also to declare his right and title in respect of the same with a direction to defendants to remove the existing constructions in the plaint schedule property shown in rough sketch and deliver vacant possession of the same by granting mandatory injunction. 3. Before the Trial Court, petitioner entered appearance through an Advocate. However, he did not file written statement. He was set ex parte on 06.01.2022 due to non-filing of written statement. Seeking to set aside the said ex parte order dated 06.01.2022, he filed I.A., in question. In the affidavit filed in support of the said I.A., the petitioner stated that due to his ill health, he was taking country made treatment at Walaja, Tamil Nadu State, as such he could not contact his counsel and give instructions to file written statement. 4. Learned Trial Court, after considering the matter, dismissed the said I.A., against which present Revision Petition came to be filed. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contended that the learned Trial Court failed to exercise discretion vested in it and as such, order under 4 Revision is liable to be set aside. He submits that trial is at the initial stage and as the valuable property rights of the petitioner / 2nd defendant are involved, learned Trial Court ought to have appreciated the matter by adopting a liberal approach. He also contended that the petitioner / 2nd defendant along with the written statement filed a petition to set aside the ex parte order and in such circumstances, learned Trial Court should have allowed the I.A., in question as no prejudice would be caused to the 1st respondent / plaintiff. He also submitted that I.A., in question was filed under Order IX Rule VII of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C.’), however, the learned Trial Court erred in relying on a decision rendered against the orders passed in an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. Placing reliance on a decision of High Court of Madras i.e., Pilla Reddy & Ors., v. Thimmaraya Reddy & Ors.,1 learned counsel seeks to allow the Revision Petition, by setting aside the impugned order. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent No.1 made submissions to sustain the order under challenge. He contended that the order does not suffer from any error, much less in exercise of jurisdiction vested in learned Trial Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the Revision Petition. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made. Perused the material on record. 1 1996 Lawsuit(Mad) 959 5 8. On an appreciation of rival contentions, the point that arises for consideration is Whether the order under revision warrants interference by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India? 9. At the outset, it may be noted that suit was filed in the year 2020 and it is not in dispute that the petitioner / 2nd defendant is represented in the suit by an Advocate. The only reason for non-filing of the written statement as seen from the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., in question was that the petitioner was taking country made treatment at Walaja, Tamil Nadu State. No details as to the nature of the ill-health, much less the period of treatment was stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A. Suffice to state that it is bald, vague and lacking in material particulars. Though petitioner is not expected to file any medical record / certificate as he was stated to be taking country side treatment, in the absence of any material particulars, no conclusions can be arrived at that a good cause exist for non-appearance. 10. Admittedly, in the present case, suit was posted for filing written statement on 06.01.2022 and the petitioner was set ex parte. After more than three years, the petitioner filed the present I.A., with vague averments as noted above. No doubt as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a liberal approach has to be adopted when the property rights of the parties are involved. However, they are expected to act with prudence, but not in a negligent manner. Reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., shorn of any specific details cannot be treated as a good cause for setting 6 aside the order. Though the delay in filing petition to set aside the ex parte order under Order IX Rule 7 of C.P.C., may not be material, however, in the absence of establishing a good cause, the ex parte order cannot be set aside. As to what amounts to good cause or sufficient cause depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case and the material placed for appreciation in support of the same. 11. In the case on hand, as already noted above, the affidavit filed in support of the application in question, which is vague, does not give any scope to arrive at a conclusion that the reason mentioned by the petitioner for non-appearance / non-filing of written statement, can be treated as a good cause. 12. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is of no help. In the said case, the petitioners / defendants in a Partition suit were under the impression that a separate written statement is not necessary and under the bona fide view that a further contest will only confuse the matter. Be that as it may. 13. Learned Trial Court after appreciating the matter with reference to the cause stated in the affidavit, which was as vague as it was, and not supported by any material, opined that the grounds stated by the petitioner to set aside ex parte order dated 06.01.2022, are not reasonable and accordingly dismissed the I.A., in question. The conclusions arrived at by the Trial Court in the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be viewed as illegal, 7 perverse. The impugned order does not suffer from any error in exercise of jurisdiction vested in the learned Trial Court. Point is answered accordingly. 14. For the foregoing reasons, the Revision Petition is dismissed. Needless to observe that petitioner can participate in the suit proceedings even without written statement. No costs. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 31.07.2026 BLV Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No Reportable Yes/No 8 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.R.P.No.451 of 2026 Date: 31.07.2026 BLV