APHC010559582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] FRIDAY, THE 14th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2829/2025 Between: 1. SAGILA SUDHAKAR REDDY, S/O. S.THIPPA REDDY. AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF SAGILAVANDLAPALLI, H/O. T. SAKIBANDA VILLAGE, CHINNAMANDEM MANDAL, Y.S.R. KADAPA DISTRICT ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. BAVANASI VENKATA LAKSHMAMMA, W/O. OBUL REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCB CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF AMBABATINAVANDLAPALLI, H/O. T. SAKIBANDA VILLAGE, CHINNAMANDEM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 2) 2. JANGA VENKATA REDDY, S/O. GURIVI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RESIDENT OF AMBABATINAVANDLAPALLI, H/O. T. SAKIBANDA VILLAGE, CHINNAMANDEM MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT 3) 3. SALAVA VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. SALAVA RAMANJULU AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE. RESIDING AT D.NO. 50/45- B, KOTHAPETA, RAYACHOTY TOWN MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ANNAMAYYA DISTRICT. 4. VANDADI LAKSHMI DEVI, W/O. KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, OCC HOUSE WIFE, RESIDING AT D.NO. 509, RAYUDU COLONY, RAYACHOTY TOWN MANDAL, KADAPA DISTRICT ANNAMAYYA DISTRIC ...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 the above named petitioner begs to present the Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the docket order dated 09-09-2025 passed in I.A. No.392 /2025 in O.S.No. 211 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), at Rayachoty for the following among other 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 stay all proceedings in O.S. No. 211 of 2015 Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayachoty and pass s 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 permit me to amend the prayer in the petition and affidavit in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 as O.S. No. 211 of 2015 instead of O.S. No. 211 of 2025 and pass 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 May be pleased to extend the order, dated 27.10.2025 made in I.A. No. 1 of 2025 in CRP.No. 2829 of 2025 and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PENJURI VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M SOLOMON RAJU 2. The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Penjuri Venugopal, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.Solomon Raju, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. 2. The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the docket order dated 09.09.2025 in I.A.No.392 of 2025 in O.S.No.210 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayachoty. 3. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.210 of 2015 against the defendants seeking specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 28.10.2015. The trial Court, by the docket order dated 17.09.2024, eschewed the evidence of P.W.1 on the ground that P.W.1 was continuously absent. The trial Court adjourned the suit for further evidence of the plaintiff, if any, to 01.10.2024. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.392 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC, to set aside the order dated 17.09.2024. The defendants filed a counter opposing the application. 4. On 09.09.2025, the trial Court dismissed I.A.No.392 of 2025 in O.S.No.210 of 2015. The operative portion of the order reads as follows: “Heard the respondents and petition is dismissed as the petitioner failed to appear before this court and argue inspite of several directions of this court. The main suit is coming for further evidence of plaintiff. Plaintiff not ready and there is no representation for plaintiff. Hence plaintiff further evidence is treated as nil and closed. For defendants evidence if any call on 18.09.2025. defendant is directed to file his evidence without fail.” 5. An interim order was granted on 12.12.2025 by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the plaintiff is suffering from ill-health from 15.09.2024 and, therefore, could not attend the Court. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the revision petitioner had never cooperated with the proceedings and therefore, the trial Court initially eschewed the evidence of P.W.1 and thereafter dismissed I.A.No.392 of 2025 filed by the revision petitioner. 8. The point for consideration is: Whether the docket order dated 09.09.2025 in I.A.No.392 of 2025 in O.S.No.210 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayachoty, is legally sustainable? 9. As seen from the docket order dated 17.09.2024, the trial Court recorded that P.W.1 was continuously absent and, consequently, eschewed the evidence of P.W.1. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.392 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC on 12.02.2025 seeking to set aside the said order. Even after filing the said interlocutory application, the plaintiff failed to advance arguments despite the directions issued by the trial Court. 10. No doubt, the trial Court opined that the plaintiff was not cooperating with the proceedings and accordingly dismissed I.A.No.392 of 2025. However, the suit was filed seeking specific performance of an agreement of sale and is of the year 2015. When substantial justice and technicalities are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial justice must be preferred. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and to afford one more opportunity to the plaintiff, this Court is of the view that the impugned docket order dated 09.09.2025 needs to be interdicted. 11. Accordingly, the docket order 09.09.2025 in I.A.No.392 of 2025 in O.S.No.210 of 2015 is hereby set aside. I.A.No.392 of 2025 in O.S.No.210 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rayachoty, stands allowed, subject to the plaintiff paying costs of Rs.5,000/- to defendants 1 and 2 within two weeks from today. If the defendants 1 or 2 decline to receive the amount, the plaintiff shall deposit the same before the Mandal Legal Services authority and file a memo before the Court. 12. The plaintiff shall file the chief affidavit within two weeks from today. If the plaintiff fails to either pay the costs or to file the chief affidavit as referred supra, the docket order dated 09.09.2025 will revive automatically without reference to any further orders of this Court. Since the suit is of the year 2015, the learned trial Court shall expedite disposal of the suit in view of the circular issued by this Court vide R.O.C.No.560/OP/CELL/ 2022, dated 23.11.2022. 13. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI Dated: 14.08.2026 SNI THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2829 of 2025 Dated: 14.08.2026 SNI