Civil Revision Petitions against orders in I.As. seeking amendment in O.S. No. 65 of 2008. The Court declined to decide on merits because the suit had been dismissed for default during pendency, and disposed of the petitions leaving restoration applications to the trial court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
»•
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVA THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER | TWOTHOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR \
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 3155.3424.3459 AND 3648OF2017
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS: 3155 OF 2017:
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,theHighCourtmay be pleased to aggrieved by the order dated 18-10-2012passedinI.A.No. 291 of 2011 in O.S. No. 65 of 2008 on the file of theycourtof III Additional District Judge, Kakinada,
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2
AND
...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ PROPOSED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT N0.3/DEFENDANT No.3
LA. NO: 2 OF 2017(CRPMP. NO: 4164 OF 2017)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thecircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to condone the delay of 1152 days in filingtheaboveCRP.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E V V S RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3424 OF 2017
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 aggrieved by the order dated 30-04-2015passedinLA.No.
292 of 2011 in O.S. No. 65 of 2008 on the file of they court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District. Between:
...PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/ PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2
AND
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/
PROPOSED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.3/DEFENDANT No.3
k
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondents; SRI E VV S RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3459 OF 2017
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 aggrieved by the order dated 30-04-2015 passed in I.A. No. 294 of 2011 in O.S. No. 65 of 2008 on the file of they court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East GodavariDistrict.
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 21
PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2
AND
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ PROPOSED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 4. Bandaru Lakshmana Rao (died)., - ...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.3/DEFENDANT No.3
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E VV S RAVI KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3648 OF 2017
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 aggrieved by the order dated 30-04-2015 passed in I.A. No. 293 of 2011 in O.S. No. 65 of 2008 on the file of they court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District.
Between:
7
Serviceman, R/o D.No.7-27, Musalamma Temple Street, Indrapalem Kakinada Rural, East Godavari District.
...PETITIONER{S)/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2/
PLAINTIFFS 1 & 2
AND
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS/ PROPOSED LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES
...RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT No.3/DEFENDANT No.3
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU Counsel for the Respondents: SRI E V V S RAVI KUMAR The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER.
: y
APHC010453962017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)
[3460]
THURSDAY ,THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY niVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3155/2017
Between;
...PETITIONER(S) Anasuri Annapoorna and Others
AND
...RESPONDENT(S) Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S);
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.E V V S RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3424/2017
Between; „.PETITIONER(S) Anasuri Annapoorna, and Others AND
...RESPONDENT(S) Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao and Others
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
t—
2
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3459/2017
Between:
...PETITIONER(S)
Anasuri Annapoorna and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner(S): .
1.SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3648/2017
Between:
Anasuri Annapoorna, and Others
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao and Others
...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.SRINIVASA RAO PAPPU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1
The Court made the following Common Order:
/ I
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 3155, 3424, 3459 and 3648 of 2017
COMMON ORDER:
Aggrieved by the Orders dated 18.10.2012 and 30.04.2015 in I.A.Nos. 291, 292, 294 and 293 of 2011 respectivelyinO.S.No.65of2008 passed by the III Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed. 2. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that subsequenttothe impugned Common Order dated 30.04.2015, the suit inO.S.No.65 of 2008 was dismissed for default on 16.06.2015 as the petitioners/plaintiffs did not carry out the amendments as directed by the trial Court. Though the learned counsel for the Petitioners desires to argue the case on merits, this Court is of the opinion that since thesuititselfisdismissedfor default before the trial Court, the present Civil RevisionPetitionscannot be entertained on merits. 3. It is also represented by the learned counsel forthePetitionersthat applications for restoration were filed before the trial Court immediately thereafter, however, those applications were not beingconsidereddueto the pendency of the present Civil Revision Petitions. Though this sounds odd since the CRPs were not a hindrance for dismissal of Suit. However,
I "V
4
\
since the CRPs are being disposed of, the trial court may pass appropriate orders thereon. 4. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of. The trial Court may consider those applications in accordance with law at the earliest. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
SD/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REQtSTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
nm
\
HIGH COURT
DATED: 19/09/2024
COMMON ORDER
CRP.No.3155,3424,3459 AND 3648 of 2017
V
g 10 DEC 20211
^°gSPATCV'fc2^
DISPOSING OF THE CIVIL REVISION PETITIONS
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the CRPs challenging orders permitting amendment could be entertained when the underlying suit was already dismissed for default.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Anasuri Annapoorna
Guttula Visweswarulu
Bandaru Venkata Ranga Rao
Bandaru Subba Lakshmi
Bandaru Veera Venkata Satyanarayana
Bandaru Lakshmana Rao (died)
Nyapathy Vijay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
