Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
J. Adinarayanamma, vs G.Subba Rayudu on 29 July, 2025
'• ♦
APHC010304822025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
I
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1482 OF 2025
Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the dismissed petition
passed in order I.A. No. 384 of 2015-in O.S.No.35/2014 on the file of Hon'ble
Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, dated 28-04-2025.
Between:
J. Adinarayanamma, W/o. late P.Pothalaiah, aged about 45 years,
Ennployee, R/o. H.No.1-118, Gunjapalli Village, Mudigubba Post and
Mandal, Ananthapur District, Working at OPR Government Polytechnic
College, B.Thandrapradu, Kurnool'City, Presently R/o. H.No.49-50A/43,
C. Camp, Kurnool . ■ ;L
...Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Defendant
AND
1. G Subba Rayudu, S/o. Naganna aged about 62 years, R/o. H.No.81-5-
0-1-1, Swamy Nagar, Kurnool Since died by his legal heir second
respondent (Amended as per orders in I.A.No.401/2022, dated 04-07-
2023)
2. G Nagalakshmamma, W/o. late G. Subba Rayudu aged about 65 years.
House Wife, R/o. H.No.81-5-0-1-1, Swamy Nagar, Kurnool, Kurnool
District
...Respondent/Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff
- ■
lA 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 further proceedings Order dated 28-04-2025 passed in
I.A.No:384/2025 in O.S. No.35/2014: on the file of the Hon'ble Principal
Senior Civil Judge Kurnool, pending disposal of the Revision Case.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Haranadha Raju Katta
Counsel for the Respondents: -
The Court made the following order:
4^,
APHC010304822025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3311]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
Tuesday, the twenty nineth day of July two thousand and twenty five
Present
The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi
Civil Revision Petition No: 1482 of 2025
Between:
J.Adinarayanamma ...Petitioner
and
G. Subba Rayudu and others ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
I.Haranadha Raju Katta
Counsel for the Respondents:
1.
The Court made the following:
2
% BSB, J
C.R.P.No.l482 of2025
ORDER:
This revision petition is filed under Section 115 C.P.C. against the order dated 28.04.2025 dismissing I.A.No.384 of 2015 in O.S.No.35 of 2014 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed by the defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 213 days in filing the application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2014.
2. The respondents / plaintiffs filed suit against the petitioner / defendant for passing preliminary decree for an amount of Rs.4,68,000/- (Rupees four lakhs sixty eight thousand only) with subsequent interest based on an unregistered simple mortgage deed dated 30.05.2012.
3. The petitioner stated that he had received the summons in the suit and engaged Lakshmana Swamy, Advocate, Kurnool, but, the advocate used to tell the petitioner that the presence of the petitioner was not required and the party has to attend the office on his intimation; that on receipt of notice by him in I.A.No.1212 of 2014 on 01.12.2014, he had taken the notice to his advocate and enquired the same and come to know that his case bundle was missing in the office of the counsel. The petitioner further stated that his counsel expressed his inability to trace the bundle and informed the petitioner that the notice related to an application for passing final decree and thus, the petitioner had come to know about the decree only on such information. Therefore, he sought to condone the delay as he has a good case to contest in the suit which is based on an un-registered mortgage deed and the decree was passed without considering the same.
4. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the respondent No.2 / plaintiff No.2 (since the respondent No.1 / plaintiff No.1 died) stating that the petitioner had already filed petition under Order IX, Rule 7 C.P.C. vide I.A.No.170 of 2014, but, could not file the written 3 BSBJ C.R.P.No.1482 of 2025 Statement and, therefore, I.A.No.170 of 2014 was dismissed for not filing the written statement. It is only when the petition for passing final decree was filed in l,A.No,1212 of 2014, this petition was filed. It is also stated that the suit is based on a simple mortgage deed without possession. The second respondent prayed to dismiss the petition.
5. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition holding that the petitioner failed to state the reasonable cause for the delay.
6. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed.
7. Inspite of service of notice on the respondent No.2, no appearance has been made.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the trial Court dismissed the petition mechanically as a result of which miscarriage of justice is done. He further submitted that the decree itself is untenable as it was passed on un-registered mortgage deed and moreover the petitioner could not contest the suit for want of assistance from the advocate and therefore, later on the petition was filed through another counsel.
10. In view of the valid reasons stated by the petitioner for the delay caused in filing the petition, the trial Court ought to have allowed the petition, at least by imposing some terms on the petitioner.
11. In the result, the revision petition is allowed by setting aside the order dated 28.04.2025 in I.A.No.384 of 2015 in O.S.No.35 of 2014 on the file of the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool and the said I.A.No.384 of 2015 is allowed on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit 1/4'^ of the decretal amount within two (2) months from the date 4 BSBrJ C.R.P.No.l482 of2025 of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the petition stands dismissed without any further order.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
Sd/. K. Tata RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,
1. The Principal Civil Judge(Senior Division), Kurnool, Kurnool District.
2. One CC to Sri. Haranadha Raju Katta Advocate [OPUC]
3. Two CD Copies stu HIGH COURT DATED:29/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1482 OF 2025 5 0 5 AUG 20?5 C9, '35'/' ^ ^ Cutteid S6C«o« ^ ALLOWING THE CRP