Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Balaga Aarudramma vs Dumpa Appanna on 17 October, 2025
Author: R. Raghunandan Rao
Bench: R Raghunandan Rao
APHC010496952025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3206]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2577/2025
Between:
1. BALAGA AARUDRAMMA, W/O. (LATE) APPALA SWAMY, HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.43-5-9, SHAKUNTHALA
RESIDENCY, RAILWAY NEW COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. DUMPA APPANNA, S/O LATE RAMULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 72
YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO-8-89, MAIN ROAD, KAPULUPPADA
(V) BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL, VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT,
2. DUMPA SADHAMMA, W/O LATE GURUVULU, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 62 YEARS. HOUSE WITE. RESIDENT OF D.NO-3-14, MAIN
ROAD, KAPULUPPADA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
3. DUMPA PARVATHI, D/O LATE GURUVULU, HINDU, AGED ABOUT
43 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE. RESIDENT OF D.NO-3-14, MAIN ROAD,
KAPULUPPADA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT
4. DUMPA DALLI SUSEELA, D/O LATE GURUVULU, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 33 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE. RESIDENT OF D.NO-53-3-11,
DALLI VEEDHI, MADDILAPALEM, VISAKNAPATNAM DISTRICT
5. DUMPA RASMANA REDDY, S/O LATE GURUVULU, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 29 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO.3-14, MAIN ROAD,
2
KAPULUPPADA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.. 6..
6. DUMPA APPALA REDDY, S/O LATE GURUVULU, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 28 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D. NO. 1-14, MAIN ROAD,
KAPULUPPADA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 7.
7. DUMPA VEERRAJU, S/O LATE SAIDAYYA , HINDU, AGED ABOUT
51 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO. 4-4/C, PATHA PARADESIPALEM,
KAPULUPPADA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL,
VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT. 8.
8. CHETIA PERAYYA, S/O LATE SAIDAYYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT
51 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO 4-4/C, PATHA PARADESIPALEM,
KAPULUPPADA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL,
VISHAKAPATNAM DISTRICT
9. CHETIA GURU MURTHY, S/O LATE SAIDAYYA, HINDU, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO.4-64, PATHA
PARADESIPALEM, KAPULUPPADA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM
MANDAL, VISAKIAPATNAM DISTRICT, 10
10. CHETIA RAMBABU, S/O LATE SAIDAYYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT
42 YEARS. RESIDENT OF D.NO 4-4/D, PATHA PARADESIPALEM,
KAPULUPPADA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. 11 .
11. CHETIA MARIDAYYA, S/O LATE SAIDAYYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT
51 YEARS, RESIDENT OF D.NO.4-58/1, PATHA PARADESIPALEM,
KAPULUPPADA VILLAGE, BHEEMUNIPATNAM MANDAL,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT. IN T.O.P 11/2025 12
12. RATHAMSETTI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O. (LATE) SAMBASIVA RAO,
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/AT PLOT.NO.92/1, DOUBLE
ROAD, M.V.P.COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. I
13. S RATHAMSETTI RAVI TEJA, S/O. (LATE) SAMBASIVA RAO,
HINDU, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT PLOT.NO.92/1, DOUBLE
ROAD, M.V.P.COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM.
...RESPONDENT(S):
3
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 petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated 05-07-2025 made in TOP No.11/2015 on the file of Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam Transferring the suit in O.S.No. 263/2023 on the file of the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Bheemunipatnam, Visakhapatnam to try along with suit in O.S.No.75/2023 on the file of Addl. District Judge at Visakhapatnam 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 e pleased to SUSPEND the Order dated 05-07- 2025 on the file of Principal District Court, Visakhapatnam in T.O.P.No.11 of 2025 including its operation, pending disposal of present Civil Revision Petition; and may be pleased to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Dr.SATTARU RAJANI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. JAVVAJI SARATH CHANDRA
2. 4
The Court made the following ORDER:
The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.263 of 2023 before the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Bheemunipatnam for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents 1 to 11 herein from interfering with her possession over the suit schedule property. It appears that the respondents 1 to 11 had filed O.S.No.75 of 2023 before the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for declaration of title over the suit schedule property.
2. The respondents 1 to 11 herein, moved T.O.P.No.11 of 2025 before the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam for transfer of O.S.No.263 of 2025 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge (Junior division), Bheemunipatnam to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam for joint trial with O.S.No.75 of 2023 in the interest of justice.
3. This petition was contested by the petitioner. However, the learned Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam, by an order, dated 05.07.2025 had allowed the application on the ground that both the suits relate to the same property and it would be appropriate both the suits to be heard together.
4. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner has moved the present revision petition before this Court. It is contended that the transfer of O.S.No.263 of 2023 to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, would result in loss of an opportunity of appeal, and the same would affect the interest of the petitioner. Apart from this, the learned counsel for the petitioner would also 5 contend that the petitioner had obtained an interim injunction, in O.S.No.263 of 2023, restraining the respondents 1 to 11 from interfering with the possession over the property and had thereafter, moved an application bearing I.A.No.124 of 2023, for police protection. The learned counsel would submit that the respondents 1 to 11 had moved the present application, for transfer of the suit, solely for the purpose of delaying the hearing and consideration of the application for police protection, which was numbered as I.A.No.124 of 2023.
5. In view of the fact that the suit filed by the petitioner relates to the question of possession and incidental title while the suit filed by the respondents 1 to 11 relates to the question of possession over the very same property, it would be appropriate to hear both the suits together.
6. However, the apprehension of the petitioner that the application for police protection was getting delayed needs to be addressed.
7. In the circumstances, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of confirming the order, dated 05.07.2025 of the Principal District Judge, Visakhapatnam in T.O.P.No.11 of 2025 with a further direction that the transfer of O.S.No.263 of 2023 to the Court of VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam shall be completed within one (1) week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and that the VI Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam shall take up and pass orders in I.A.No.124 of 2023 in O.S.No.263 of 2023, expeditiously and at any rate within a period of six (6) 6 weeks from the date of the suit being transferred to the Court. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J Date: 17.10.2025 KA 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2577/2025 Date: 17.10.2025 KA