Dismissed¶33

Jogi Gangulappa(Died) v. G. Chinappa Reddy

Andhra Pradesh HC24 Mar 2025CRP/721/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; Civil Revision Petition No. 721 of 2025; Justice Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad; decided 25.03.2025; specific performance decree dated 18.01.2018 in O.S. No. 27 of 2013; execution petition E.P. No. 94 of 2022; II Additional District Judge, Hindupur; A.S. No. 396 of 2024 with condonation of delay pending; no stay of decree; revision dismissed, no order as to costs; interlocutory applications closed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order in E.P. No. 94 of 2022 in O.S. No. 27 of 2013 does not suffer from any infirmity; the Civil Revision Petition is bereft of merit. ¶32

Jogi Gangulappa(Died) Vs G. Chinappa Reddy — Andhra Pradesh HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

APHC010131692025

¶2

[3328]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 721/2025

¶9

Between:

¶10

JOGI GANGULAPPA(DIED), (DIED) BY HIS LRS.HINDUS, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT KODURU VILLAGE CHLLAMATHUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

¶11

SMT. VENKATAMMA, W/O LATE JOGI YELLAPPA, AGED 70 YEARS,HINDUS, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT KODURU VILLAGE CHLLAMATHUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

¶12

SRI. VENKATARAJU, S/O LATE JOGI YELLAPPA AGED 50 YEARS.HINDUS, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT KODURU VILLAGE CHLLAMATHUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

¶13

SRI. JOGI KISTAPPA, S/O LATE JOGI YELLAPPA, AGED 48 YEARS.HINDUS, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT KODURU VILLAGE CHLLAMATHUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

¶14

JOGI GURAPPA, S/O JOGI GANGULAPPA, AGED 65 YEARS HINDUS, CULTIVATION, RESIDING AT KODURU VILLAGE CHLLAMATHUR MANDAL, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT

¶15

...PETITIONER(S)

¶16

AND

¶17

G CHINAPPA REDDY, S/O G.RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O.KODURU VILLAGE CHILAMATHURU MANDAL, NOW RESIDING AT D.NO.25/505, PARTHASARTHI NAGAR, DHARMAVARAM, ANANTHAPUR DISTRICT.

¶18

¶19

...RESPONDENT

¶20

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶21

1.INENI VENKATA PRASAD

¶22

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶23

1. Nil

¶24

The Court made the following:

¶25

ORAL ORDER:

¶26

Heard Sri Ineni Venkata Prasad, learned Counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioners.

¶27

It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioners that the present Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the order passed by the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, in E.P. No. 94 of 2022 in O.S.No.27 of 2013, dated 17.02.2025.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the Revision Petitioners would submit that the present Revision Petitioners are the Defendants in O.S.No.27 of 2013 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, and that the Respondent herein filed O.S.No.27 of 2013 seeking a decree of Specific Performance.

¶29

It is submitted that, vide Order dated 18.01.2018, the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur, was pleased to pass a Judgment and Decree in favor of the Plaintiff/Respondent herein. It is also submitted that the Defendants in the Suit filed A.S.No.396 of 2024 along with an Application for Condonation of Delay. It is submitted that the Application for Condonation of Delay in A.S.No.396 of 2024 is pending for adjudication. No Order has been passed at the moment with regard to staying of the decree. It is also submitted that the Decree Holder/Plaintiff has filed E.P.No.94 of 2022 before the Court of the learned II Additional District Judge, Hindupur. It appears that the Appeal was filed by the Judgment Debtors in the year 2024 only after the Execution Petition was filed by the successful Plaintiff.

¶30

¶31

This Court has perused the Order in E.P.No.94 of 2024 in O.S.No.27 of 2013 dated 17.02.2025.

¶32

Having considered the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the present Civil Revision Petition is bereft of any merit, inasmuch as the order impugned herein does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶33

In this view of the matter, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶34

Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.

¶35

______________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J

¶36

Date: 25.03.2025 DSV

Jogi Gangulappa(Died) v. G. Chinappa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jogi Gangulappa(Died) v. G. Chinappa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imperial Costal Infra Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

I Minds English Medium School Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Paidela Sivarami Reddy Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Jahangir Vs the State of Andhra Pradesh

Kilarapu Kameswara Rao Vs Smt K Vetriselvi

Dunna Ravi Sankar Vs the Extention Officer