The State Of Andhra Pradesh vs D.Sarala
2021 Latest Caselaw 4577 AP

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                                        &

         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

                        WRIT APPEAL No.686 of 2021
                              (Through physical mode)

The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its
Principal Secretary, Revenue Department,
(Stamps and Registration), Secretariat,
Amaravathi, Guntur District, and others.
                                                        .. Appellants

       Versus

D. Sarala W/o. Dommalapati Ramesh,
Resident of Krishna Nagar, Madanapalle
Post and Town, and others.

                                                        .. Respondents

Counsel for the appellants : GP for Assignment

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 11.11.2021

(per Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This writ appeal would call in question the order dated 29.01.2021

passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.1696 of 2021, whereby the

writ petition filed by the respondents herein was disposed of with certain

directions.

2. Learned Government Pleader for Assignment appearing for the

appellants submits that on the same cause of action, the respondents/writ

petitioners have earlier filed W.P.No.41454 of 2017, which is pending

consideration before this Court, and as a fresh writ petition should not have

been filed during pendency of the earlier writ petition, the order under

challenge cannot be sustained.

                                        2                             HCJ & MSM,J
                                                               W.A.No.686 of 2021

3. Mr. Suresh Kumar Reddy Kalava, learned counsel for the respondents/

writ petitioners, would fairly admit the aforesaid submissions of the learned

Government Pleader. While explaining that he was not aware of the

pendency of the earlier writ petition, he submits that the respondents/writ

petitioners may be permitted to pursue the earlier writ petition.

4. In view of the consensus arrived at the bar, the order under challenge

is hereby set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. However, the

respondents/writ petitioners are allowed to pursue the earlier writ petition

filed by them. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on

the merits of the matter.

5. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed. No costs.

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

IBL