Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sagireddy Yeruka Naidu vs Apuri Venkata Ramana Rao on 7 November, 2024
APHC010616992022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA
PRADESH
[3460]
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2341/2022
Between:
Sagireddy Yeruka Naidu and Others ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Apuri Venkata Ramana Rao ...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. T D PANI KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1. K SUBRAHMANYAM
The Court made the following:
2
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.2341 of 2022
ORDER:
The present revision is filed against the order dated
11.10.2022 in I.A.No.178 of 2023 in O.S.No.118 of 2013
passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam.
2. The Petitioners are the defendants. The suit
O.S.No.118 of 2013 was filed for specific performance of
agreement of sale and the same was decreed ex parte on
25.06.2019. Thereafter, plaintiff filed E.P.No.16 of 2021
seeking execution and at that stage, the petitioners filed
E.A.No.38 of 2022 seeking to stay of all further proceedings
in E.A.No.105 of 2021 in E.P.No.16 of 20121 till disposal of
the petitions filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C.
3. The said applications were dismissed. Questioning
the same, the petitioner filed CRP.Nos.1277 and 1279 of
2022 before this Court. This Court after considering the
applications, dismissed the same by order dated
14.07.2022 and at para 12 of the order this Court had
observed as under:
12. On careful perusal of the orders passed by the
learned Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam, it appears the
petitioners were given ample opportunity to adduce
evidence but they have not adduced evidence and were
called absent and thereby the trial Court passed judgment
on merits on 25.06.2019. It appears, the petitioners without
availing earlier opportunity given to them, they filed
petitions under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with Section
5 of Limitation Act without any sufficient cause and filed
petition to stay further proceedings in E.A.No.105 of 2021
in E.P.16 of 2021, at the stage of delivery of the property.
As such, in our considered view, we find no reasons to
interfere into the order, dated 22.03.2022 in E.A.No.38 of
2022 in E.A.No.105 of 2021 in E.P.No.16 of 2021 in
O.S.No.118 of 2013 and the order, dated 09.05.2022 in
E.P.No.16 of 2021 in O.S.No.118 of 2013, on the file of the
Senior Civil Judge, Narsipatnam. Therefore, the present
Civil Revision Petitions are liable to be dismissed.
4. The present revision arises out of an application filed
to condone the delay of 980 days in seeking to set aside the
ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. the trial
Court had dismissed it on the ground that there are no bona
fides on the part of the petitioner.
5. Heard Sri T.D.Phani Kumar,learned counsel for the
petitioners and Sri K.subrahmanyam, learned counsel for
the respondent.
6. Considering the facts that the explanation of the
petitioner was rejected by this Court in the above revisions
as extracted above, this Court has no choice to dismiss the
present revision.
7. The civil revision petition is therefore dismissed. No
order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions,
if any, shall stand closed.
__________________
NYAPATHY VIJAY, J
Date: 07.11 .2024
KLP
