APHC010050222026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Friday, the 14th day of August, 2026 Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 369 of 2026 Between: Kalavakurthi Lakshminarasamma and others ... Petitioners and K. Parandhama Reddy (died) by L. Rs. and others ... Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: 1. O. Udaya Kumar Counsel for the respondents: 1. N. Ranga Reddy The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P. No.369 of 2026 3 C.R.P. No.369 of 2026 ORDER: The civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 16.10.2025 allowing E.A. No. 92 of 2025 in E.P. No. 58 of 2019 in O.S. No. 186 of 1983 filed under Order XXII, Rule 3 of C.P.C. by the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 herein to implead them as legal representatives of the deceased D.Hr.4. 2. E.P. No. 58 of 2019 was filed for enforcement of a decree for specific performance. Pending the execution proceedings, on the death of D.Hr, his legal representatives were added. Sri K. Parandhama Reddy, impleaded as D.Hr.4, also died pending execution proceedings. E.A. No. 316 of 2024 was filed by the revision petitioners to get themselves impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased D.Hr.4. Pending this application, the respondents Nos.2 to 4 herein filed E.A. No. 92 of 2025 to get themselves impleaded as legal representatives of the D.Hr.4. E.A. No. 92 of 2025 was initially objected by the Court before its registration, but the same was later registered, before E.A. No. 316 of 2024 was allowed. 3. In addition thereto, the revision petitioners, who are the respondents in E.A. No. 92 of 2025, after filing their counter, were set ex parte on 15.10.2025, and the matter was adjourned to 16.10.2025. The execution Court, on 16.10.2025, heard the petitioners and allowed the petition with a very cryptic order which reads as follows: “Heard the petitioner. In order to dispose of this E.P. on merits, the petition is allowed.” 4. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition was filed. 4 C.R.P. No.369 of 2026 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the impugned order was very cryptic and non-speaking order, that too, passed without providing a sufficient opportunity to contest the petition. He further submitted that the petition was allowed without proof of any relationship with the deceased D.Hr.4, and despite allowing previous petition E.A. No. 316 of 2024 on 13.08.2025 for the purpose of adding legal representatives of the deceased D.Hr.4. 6. The learned counsel for the respondents Nos. 2 to 4 requested to pass an appropriate order. 7. The facts stated above are explicit that the order impugned is unsustainable, for two main reasons, firstly, there are no reasons, secondly, the application filed by the revision petitioners in E.A. No. 316 of 2024 was already allowed before allowing E.A. No. 92 of 2025. That apart, no evidence for establishing the relationship was placed in E.A. No. 92 of 2025. 8. Under the above facts and circumstances, as two groups of people were claiming the same relationship with the deceased D.Hr.4, the execution Court ought to be cautious while allowing the second petition i.e., E.A. No. 92 of 2025, but in a very routine and casual manner, just by setting the respondents ex parte, allowed the petition without properly conducting enquiry or considering the material available on file. 9. For the above reasons, the revision petition is allowed and the order impugned in the revision petition is set aside and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for adjudication afresh after furnishing an opportunity to the revision petitioners / respondents in E.A. No. 92 of 2025 to file counter and contest the petition and thereafter, pass an order on merits with reasons. 5 C.R.P. No.369 of 2026 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 14.08.2026 NSM 6 C.R.P. No.369 of 2026 112 The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 369 of 2026 Dated: 14.08.2026 NSM