Kamavaram Aruna Vs Manukindi Eranna

¶1

APHC010288332025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI 0*

¶3

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1369 of 2Q2fi

¶7

Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the orders dated 25.04.2025 passed in E.P. No. 145 of 2023 in O.S. No.22 of 2021, by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, Kurnool District.

¶8

Between:

¶9

Kamavaram Aruna, W/o. IVladhusudhan, D/o. Late Kamavaram Sreeramulu, aged about 49 years, H. No. 4/70, Near Sri Kosigaiah Temple, KOSIGI, 518 313(A.P.), Kurnool District.

¶10

Kampati Thikkayya, S/o. Kampati Pedda Yellaiah, aged about 40 years. Occupation: Agriculture, resident of Kosigi Village & Mandal, Kurnool District.

¶11

Petitioners/Decree Holders/Plaintiffs

¶12

AND

¶13

Manukindi Eranna, S/o. Abjinaiah, aged about 59 years. Occupation; Agriculture, resident of H. No. 4/65, Near Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple Community hall, Kasammagadda Street, KOSIGI-518 313(A.P.), Kurnool District.

¶14

M Hanumanthamma, W/o Eranna, aged about 52 years. Occupation; House wife and Agriculture, Resident of H. No. 4/65, Near Sri

¶15

Anjaneyaswamy Temple Community hall, Kasammagadda Street, * KOSIGI-518 313(A.P.), Kurnool District.

¶16

';3. IVI Ereddy, S/o Eranna, aged about 32 years. Occupation: Agriculture, resident of Ward No.3, Near Basanna Vanka, KOSIGI-518 313(A.P.), Kurnool District.

¶17

M Mahadeva, S/o Eranna, aged about 29 years. Occupation Agriculture, resident of H. No. 4/65, Near Sri Anjaneyaswamy Temple Community hall, Kasammagadda Street, KOSIGI-518 313(A.P.), Kurnool District.

¶18

M Thayamma, W/o Kammaladinne Veerreddy @ Balaiah, aged about 47 years. Occupation: housewife and Agriculture, resident of Ward No. 3, Near Basanna Vanka, KOSIGI-518 313(A.P.), Kurnool^District.

¶19

...Respondents/Judgment Debtors/Defendants

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K RAJANNA

¶21

Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared

¶22

The Court made the following Order:

[3311]

APHC010288332025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

¶27

AT AMARAVATI

¶28

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶29

Tuesday, the twenty fourth day of June, Two Thousand Twenty Five

¶30

Present

¶31

The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi

¶32

Civil Revision Petition No: 1369/2025

¶33

Between:

¶34

Kamavaram Aruna and others

¶35

...Petitioners

¶36

and

¶37

Manukindi Eranna and others ...Respondents

¶38

Counsel for the petitioners:

¶39

I.K.Rajanna

¶40

Counsel for the respondents:

¶41

Nil

¶42

The Court made the following:

¶43

ORDER:

¶44

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 115 of C.P.C against the order dated 25.04.2025 dismissing E.P.No.145 of²⁰²³ in O.S.No.22 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Adoni filed under Order 21 rule 32(1) CPC to order arrest of judgment^debtorsNo.1 to 5 for disobedience of the decree for permanent injunction^{andsendthemtocivil} prison.

¶45

The revision petitioners/decree holders contended that judgment debtors No.1 to 5 are intentionally interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of D.Hrs over land to an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in survey No.147 of Kosigi village, Kurnool district and trying to damage the standing crop in

¶46

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1369 of2025

¶47

that property. On receipt of notices, judgment debtors failed to appear before the execution Court. Hence, they were set exparte. 3. The D.Hrs filed E.A.No.277 of 2024 seeking police aid. The petition was not pressed on 21.04.2025. On the same day the execution Court heard the counsel for the D.Hrs and posted the matter ‘for orders’ on 25.04.2025. The execution petition was dismissed on 25.04.2025 holding that the decree holders failed to adduce any evidence to prove their contentions. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition was filed.

¶48

The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the execution Court had not given opportunity to lead evidence, but dismissed the petition as though evidence was not lead by the decree holders. He further submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) Thr. Lrs. and others Vs., V.Rajamani and Anr.,^ which directed the disposal of the execution petitions within six (06) months, the execution petition was dismissed without providing adequate opportunity, solely on the ground that the execution petition was filed in the year 2023. 5. Since the petitioner was not given chance to lead evidence but the petition was dismissed on the ground of want of evidence, it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order. • revision petition is allowed and the order dated 25.04.2025 dismissing E.P.No.145 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Adoni is set aside. The execution Court is directed to give opportunity to the decree holders to lead evidence and decide the petition afresh, within three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The D.Hrs shall produce all the evidence in support of their contentions without taking any further^time.

¶49

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶50

'2025 see Online Se 507

¶51

3

¶52

r '

¶53

BSB, J C.R.P.No.1369 of2025

¶54

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.