Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Mahaboob Subani vs Vangara Ranga Rao on 2 January, 2026
Author: R Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010485642025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2332/2025
Between:
1. SHAIK MAHABOOB SUBANI, S/O LATE ABDUL MUNAF, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, BUSINESS, C/O 76-14-233/5, ASRAMAM
STREET, BHAVANI PURAM, VIJAYAWADA-12, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. VANGARA RANGA RAO, S/O.LATE VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, 62
YRS. GOLDSMITH R/O.DOOR NO.64-6-2129, 10/4TH LANE, 17TH
WARD, SUDDAPALLI DONKA, JOHNY SWARAJYA NAGAR,
YANADI COLONY. NEAR ABUTURAB MASQUE, OLD GUNTUR,
GUNTUR.
2. VANGARA ANASURYAVATHI, W/O.LATE VENKATA KRISHNA RAO,
84 YRS, R/O. DOOR NO. 18-8-17/A, HINDU MUSLIM ROAD,
ISLAMPET, TENALI.
3. VANGARA MOHANA RAO, @ GUTHIKONDA MOHANA RAO,
S/O.LATE VENKATA KRISHNA RAO, 52 YRS. REAL ESTATE,
R/O.DOOR NO. 48-11-32/10, GUMMADI HEIGHTS, K.R.K. STREET,
CURRENCY NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
4. VANGARA RAMA CHANDRA RAO, S/O.LATE VENKATA KRISHNA
RAO, 56 YRS, GOLDSMITH, R/O.DOOR NO. 18-96, BITRAVARI
STREET, BHATTIPROLU, BHATTIPROLU MANDAL, BAPATIA
DISTRICT.
5. DIVI RUKMINI KUMARI, W/O.LATE BHASKARA RAO, C/O. VEERA
RAGHAVAIAH, 66 YRS, HOUSE WIFE PRESENTLY R/O. DOOR NO.
1-4-207/1, UDDANTIVARI STREET, VIDYADHARAPURAM,
2
RRR, J
C.R.P.No.2332 of 2025
VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
6. KUSAM SEETHARAVAMMA, W/O. LATE VERANJANEYULU, 60 YRS.
HOUSE WIFE, R/O.C/O.KUSAM RAMU, PRESENTLY DOOR NO.5-
179/8, L.B.NAGAR, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
7. MUNAGALA RAJYA LAKSHMI, W/O. SUBRAHMANYAM, 50 YRS.
HOUSE WIFE, PRESENTLY R/O. DOOR NO.8-13-70/B. 11TH LANE.
MAIN ROAD, NEAR SANJEEVAIAH NAGAR RAILWAY GATE
GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
8. VANGARA SRI KRISHNAIAH, S/O LATE KEDARESWARA RAO, AGE
34 YEARS. RAILWAY EMPLOYEE, PRESENTLY R/O. DOOR NO.8-
512, BHARGAVAPET, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
9. VANGARA DATTATREYA, S/O. LATE KEDARESWARA RAO, AGED
30 YRS. PVT EMPLOYEE, R/O. DOOR NO. 18-8-17/A, HINDU
MUSLIM ROAD ISLAMPET, TENALI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...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 toPleased to set aside the docket order dated 19-08-2025 passed in E.A. No. 90/2025 in E.P. No. 3/2024 in O.S. No. 144/2012 by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle and to pass 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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in E.A. No.90/2025 in E.P. No.3 of 2024 in O.S. No. 144/2012 on the file of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle pending disposal of the afore said Civil Revision Petition and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. SRIRAM KOPPURAVURI
2. VENKATESWARA RAO B 3 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2332 of 2025 The Court made the following Order:
The 1st respondent herein had filed O.S.No.144 of 2012 before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Repalle, for partition against respondents 2 to 9. The respondents remained exparte in the suit and the suit came to be decreed on 05.01.2017. The 1st respondent, had thereafter, filed E.P.No.3 of 2024, for execution of the said Judgment and Decree.
2. At that stage, the petitioner herein filed a claim petition, bearing E.A.No.90 of 2025. The petitioner contended, in the claim petition, that the property which is sought to be partitioned, namely an extent of 196 Sq.yds of vacant house site, nearest Door No.75-6-57, in R.S.No.95/3 of Bhavanipuram Village of Vijayawada Municipal Corporation, had been sold to him by the 4th defendant, by way of a registered deed of sale, dated 12.01.1999, registered as document No.86/1999 with the Joint Sub-Registrar, Vijayawada.
3. The Executing Court, after recording the fact that the respondents 2 to 9 had been set exparte, gave time to the 1st respondent to file his counter affidavit. This docket order was passed on 19.08.2025. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has approached this Court, by way of the present Civil Revision Petition.
4. It is the contention of the petitioner that he should have been permitted to take out notice to respondents 2 to 9 also, inasmuch as it was the 5th respondent (4th defendant), who had sold the property to the petitioner and 4 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2332 of 2025 it was within the knowledge of all the respondents, despite which the suit came to be filed.
5. In the circumstances, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It would be appropriate that the petitioner is given an opportunity of serving notice, on all the respondents, of the Execution Petition as well as the notice of the claim petition filed in the Execution Petition inasmuch as specific allegations are being made against these respondents.
6. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed, with a direction to the Executing Court to permit the petitioner to take out personal notice to all the respondents and file proof of service of the same before the Trial Court. Thereupon, the Trial Court to take up the claim petition. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J 02.01.2026 MJA 5 RRR, J C.R.P.No.2332 of 2025 79 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2332/2025 02.01.2026 MJA