Dismissed¶34

Buchireddigari Srinivasulu Reddy v. Buchireddigari Shankar Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC18 Sept 2025CRP/1123/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

APHC CRP No.1123 of 2025, decided 19.09.2025 by Justice B Krishna Mohan, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. Keywords: Civil Revision Petition; Advocate Commissioner; appointment of commissioner; physical features of schedule property; I.A.No.290 of 2024; O.S.No.121 of 2016; Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tirupati; defendant evidence stage; Article 227 Constitution of India; Section 151 CPC; revision dismissed; interim order deemed vacated; no costs; suit to proceed on own merits. Counsel: A Chandraih Naidu for petitioner; Dasari S V V S V Prasad for respondent. No precedents cited or discussed.

What did the court decide?

None; the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, any interim order is deemed to have been vacated, and there is no order as to costs. ¶34

Buchireddigari Srinivasulu Reddy Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Andhra Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

APHC010170302025

¶2

[3233]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

FRIDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B KRISHNA MOHAN

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1123/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

BUCHIREDDIGARI SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O, LATE B. RAMI REDDY, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT D.NO. 1-24/1, THANDLAM VILLAGE AND POST, RENIGUNTA LANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT.

¶11

...PETITIONER

¶12

AND

¶13

BUCHIREDDIGARI SHANKAR REDDY, S/o late B. Krishna Reddy, Hindu, aged about 60 years, cultivation, residing at D.No. 1-13, Thandlam village and post, Renigunta landal, Chittoor district.

¶14

...RESPONDENT

¶15

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 allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Order dt. 03.09.2024 passed in I.A. No.290/2024 in O.S.No.121/2019 on the file of on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tirupati, in the interest of justice and pass

¶16

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶17

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in O.S.No.121/2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division) Tirupati, pending disposal of the above Revision Petition and pass

¶18

¶19

HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1123 of 2025

¶20

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶21

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 vacate the interim order passed in dated 04.07.2025 in CRP no.1123 of 2025, and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.A CHANDRAIH NAIDU

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶25

1.DASARI S V V S V PRASAD

¶26

¶27

HBKM,J C.R.P.No.1123 of 2025

¶28

The Court made the following Order:

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶30

This revision is filed against the order passed in I.A.No.290 of 2024 in O.S.No.121 of 2016 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati dated 03.09.2024.

¶31

The petitioner is the defendant in the suit and the petitioner in the above said I.A. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit and the respondent in the above said I.A.

¶32

The above said I.A. is filed for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the petition schedule property. Now that the suit is at the stage of the defendant’s evidence. There is no dispute with regard to the details of the suit schedule property.

¶33

The appointment of Advocate Commissioner is not warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case. There is no merit in the revision. However, both the parties are directed to cooperate with the suit proceedings, for early disposal of the suit. Uninfluenced by the orders passed in the above said I.A. and in the revision, the suit shall be dealt with on its own merits independently.

¶34