APHC010205622026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] MONDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1151/2026 Between: 1. POLAVARAPU HANUMANTHA RAO, S/O. LATE SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 10- 102/3, RAJAKULAVEDDHI, STATION ROAD, VELPUR, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. POLAVARAPU VARALAKSHMI, W/O. LATE SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O. 8TH WARD. RAILWAY STATION ROAD, VELPUR, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ... RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT 2. POLAVARAPU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O. LATE SUBBARAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 10-102/3, RAJAKULAVEDDHI, STATION ROAD, VELPUR, TANUKU MANDAL, WEST GODAVARIDISTRICT. ...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 aggrieved by the order dt. 10.04.2026 passed in (Sr.No.2330 of 2026 (un-numbered) in O.S. No. 149 of 2017 on the 2026) I.A. No. file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tanuku, the above- named 2 petitioner begs to present this memorandum of civil revision petition for the following among other IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 certified copies of the original petition filed vide CRP (1151) of 2026I.A. No.1 2026 in O.S. No. 149 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tanuku, and to accept the photocopies filed in lieu thereof, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026 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 stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the judgment and decree dt. 17.02.2026 passed in O.S. No. 149 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tanuku, pending disposal of the above civil revision petition and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper as otherwise the petitioner will suffer grave and irreparable loss and injury. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M R S SRINIVAS Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1151 of 2026 The Court made the following Order: The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the return of IA (SR) No.2330 of 2026 in OS No.149 of 2017 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tanaku, West Godavari District. 2. Petitioners are defendants. Originally, the suit was filed for recovery of possession and damages. The suit was decreed on 17.02.2026 and the application for obtaining the certified copy of Judgment was filed on 18.02.2026. As the certified copy was not provided in time, left with no other option, the petitioner filed the present IA on 05.04.2026 for enlargement and extension of time prescribed by the Court below, which was returned on 06.04.2026, raising an objection with regard to the maintainability of petition. Basing on the same, the petitioners/defendants re- submitted the same along with the Judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India reported in (2005) 6 SCC 344. The Court below has once again returned the said application on 10.04.2026 4 stating that the above ratio is not applicable to the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision is filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently submitted that though the Court passed the Decree on 17.02.2026 granting two (02) months time for handing over the possession of the property, but the fact remains that the parties could not be able to get the certified copies till 05.04.2026. Hence, they made an application for extension of the time which was prescribed in the Decree. The identical issue was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court under Section 148 and held as follows “…… 41. The amendment made in Section 148 affects the power of the Court to enlarge time that may have been fixed or granted by the Court for the doing of any act prescribed or allowed by the Code. The amendment provides that the period shall not exceed 30 days in total. Before amendment, there was no such restriction of time. Whether the Court has no inherent power to extend the time beyond 30 days is the question. We have no doubt that the upper limit fixed in Section 148 cannot take away the inherent power of the Court to pass orders as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of Court. The rigid operation of the section would lead to absurdity. Section 151 has, therefore, to be allowed to fully 5 operate. Extension beyond maximum of 30 days, thus, can be permitted if the act could not be performed within 30 days for the reasons beyond the control of the party. We are not dealing with a case where time for doing an act has been prescribed under the provisions of the Limitation Act which cannot be extended either under Section 148 or Section 151. We are dealing with a case where the time is fixed or granted by the Court for performance of an act prescribed or allowed by the Court. 42. In Mahanth Ram Das v. Ganga Das [AIR 1961 SC 882], this Court considered a case where an order was passed by the Court that if the Court fee was not paid by a particular day, the suit shall stand dismissed. It was a self- operating order leading to dismissal of the suit. The party's application filed under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code for extension of time was dismissed. Allowing the appeal, it was observed: "How undesirable it is to fix time peremptorily for a future happening which leaves the Court powerless to deal with events that might arise in between, it is not necessary to decide in this appeal. These orders turn out, often enough to be inexpedient. Such procedural orders, though peremptory (conditional decree apart), are, in essence, in terrorem, so that dilatory litigants might put themselves in order and avoid delay. They do not, however, completely estop a Court from taking note of events and 6 circumstances which happen within the time fixed. For example, it cannot be said that, if the appellant had started with the full money ordered to be paid and came well in time, but was set upon and robbed by thieves the day previous, he could not ask for extension of time or that the Court was powerless to extend it. Such orders are not like the law of the Medes and the Persians." 43. There can be many cases where non-grant of extension beyond 30 days would amount to failure of justice. The object of the Code is not to promote failure of justice. Section 148, therefore, deserves to be read down to mean that where sufficient cause exists or events are beyond the control of a party, the Court would have inherent power to extend time beyond 30 days.” Emphasis supplied 4. Even in the said case the very contention raised by the parties is that when the reason for implementation is beyond control of parties, the same cannot be denied only on the ground of limitation prescribed under Section 148 and further held that the object of the Court is not to promote failure of justice. Section 148 therefore deserves to read down to mean that where sufficient cause exists or events are beyond control of the parties, the Court would have inherent power to extent time beyond 30 days. 7 5. But surprisingly, the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court were not taken into consideration by the Court below in returning the said application filed by the petitioners. 6. Considering the submissions and perusal of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamilnadu Vs. Union of India, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tanaku, West Godavari District to number the IA (SR) No.2330 of 2026 in OS No.149 of 2017 and pass appropriate orders basing on the record. It is needless to state that till passing of the orders by the Court below, all the parties are directed to maintain Status Quo obtaining as on today. 7. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Interlocutory applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. __________________ JUSTICE D RAMESH Date: 20.04.2026 Note: Issue C.C. on 22.04.2026 B/o. PSA