Dismissed¶52

Pithani Venu Gopala Rao v. Chundru Lakshmi

Andhra Pradesh HC4 Mar 2026CMA/715/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati; C.M.A.No.715 of 2025; Order 38 Rule 5 CPC conditional attachment; Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC appeal maintainability; Rule 6 Order 38 CPC; condonation of delay 2114 days filing and 93 days re-presentation; Section 151 CPC; I.A.No.657 of 2019 in O.S.No.21 of 2019; IV Additional District Judge Kakinada; dismissal as not maintainable; remedy to furnish security or object before trial Court; decided 05.03.2026; Justices Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli.

What did the court decide?

There being no sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 (condonation of 2114 days' delay in filing and 93 days' delay in re-presenting) are dismissed. ¶50

Pithani Venu Gopala Rao Vs Chundru Lakshmi — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 2114 days in filing the appeal and 93 days in re-presenting it should be condoned (I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 under Section 151 CPC) +1 more

¶50

Court's answer

There being no sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay, I.A.Nos.1 and 2 of 2025 (condonation of 2114 days' delay in filing and 93 days' delay in re-presenting) are dismissed.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The remedy of the defendants against an order of conditional attachment is either to furnish a security or to file objections before the Court concerned.

¶47

Key takeaways

The appeal remedy under Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC lies against an order passed under Rule 6 of Order 38 CPC, not against an order passed under Rule 5; no Rule 6 order had yet been passed, and the present appeal was filed against the Rule 5 order, hence it is not maintainable.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 715 of 2025, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati (bench: Ravi Nath Tilhari and Balaji Medamalli, JJ.; judgment per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.), decided 05.03.2026 — Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC against an order of conditional attachment dated 04.04.2019 passed under Rule 5 of Order 38 CPC in I.A.No.657 of 2019 in O.S.No.21 of 2019 by the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada. Applications under Section 151 CPC to condone 2114 days' delay in filing (I.A.No.1 of 2025) and 93 days' delay in re-presenting (I.A.No.2 of 2025) were dismissed, no sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay being offered. The Court held that the statutory appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC lies against an order under Rule 6 of Order 38 CPC and not against an order under Rule 5; against a Rule 5 conditional-attachment notice the defendants' remedy is to furnish security or file objections before the trial Court, and no Rule 6 order had been passed. The appeal was accordingly dismissed as not maintainable, with no order as to costs and miscellaneous petitions closed.

¶1

[3572]

¶2

APHC010239722025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

THUR S DAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE BALAJI MEDAMALLI

¶7

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 715/2025

¶8

Between:

¶9

PITHANI VENU G OPALA RAO, S/O. LATE. SURY A RAO, AGED ABOUT 57 YEA R S. OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O. D .NO.79-2-20/1, VADREVU NAGAR, SYAMALA NAGAR, RAJAHMUND R Y.

¶10

PITHANI SAI SUR Y A KARTHEEK, S/O. VENUGOPA L RAO, AGED ABOUT 36 YEA R S, OCC. CULTIVATION R/O. D .NO.79-2-20/1, VADREVU NAGAR, SYAMALA NAGAR, RAJAHMUND R Y.

¶11

PITHANI VENKAT A SUBRAHMANYAM, S/O. LATE. SURYA RAO, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC. CULTIVATION, R/O . D.NO. 18-1265/3 SAI NAGARA M , SAMALKOT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT

¶12

PITHANI SREENI V AS, S/O. VENKATA SUBRAHM A NYAM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEAR S , OCC. STUDENT, R/O. D.NO. 18-12-65/3, SAI NAGARAM, SAMA L KOT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶13

PITHANI MOUNIK A , D/O. PITHANI VENKATA SUBRAHMANUYAM, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT, R/O. D. N O. 18-12-65/3, SAI NAGARAM, S A MALKOT, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶14

DANGATI ANURA D HA, W/O. DANGETI KRISHNA M U RTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEAR S , OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.N O .11-7-5, NEAR BALA TRIPURA S U NDARI TEMPLE, RAMARAOPETA , KAKINADA -4 , EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶15

MEDISETTI SATY A VATHI, W/0. SURYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, OCC. H OUSE WIFE R/O. D.NO.3-156, S U BBARAYUDU

¶16

¶17

RNT,J & BM,J C.M.A.No.715 of 2025

¶18

PETA, MALLAM VILLAGE

¶19

KUDUPUDI ATCHI KANTHAM, W/O NUKARAJU, AGED 47 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.3-156D.NO.2-60, NAVARA VILLAGE, SAMALKOT MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, (THE 6TH PETITIONER WAS DIED ON 18-12-2022 AND TO ADD THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE 6TH PETITIONER I.A'S ARE PENDING BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT. HENCE THE 6TH RESPONDENT IS PROFORMA PARTY TO THE PRESENT CIVIL REVISION PETITION)

¶20

...APPELLANT(S)

¶21

AND

¶22

CHUNDRU LAKSHMI, W/o Ranga Rao, Hindu, aged about 57yrs, R/o Door No.8-143 Velpuru Village, Tanuku Mandal, Tanuku.

¶23

...RESPONDENT

¶24

Appeal Under Section_____againstorderspleased to set aside the Order in I.A.No. 657 of 2019 in O.S.No.21 of 2019 on the file of III Additional District Judge At Kakinada, dt. 04-04-2019 and pass

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶26

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 to condone the delay of 2114 days in filing the revision petition and pass

¶27

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶28

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 to condone the delay of 93 days in Re-Presenting filing the C.M.A. No.715 of 2025 Pending the Present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, and pass

¶29

Counsel for the Appellant(S):

¶30

1.G V V S VARA PRASAD

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶32

1.JOSYULA BHASKARA RAO

¶33

¶34

RNT,J & BM,J C.M.A.No.715 of 2025

¶35

The Court made the following

¶36

JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari)

¶37

Heard Ms. Prashamsha, learned counsel representing Mr.G.V.V.S.Vara Prasad, learned counsel for the appellants/defendants appearing through virtual mode and Sri Josyula Bhaskara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/plaintiff.

¶38

The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short, CPC.,) challenging the order of conditional attachment dated 04.04.2019 passed in I.A.No.657 of 2019 in O.S.No.21 of 2019, by the IV Additional District Judge at Kakinada.

¶39

The said order has been passed under Rule 5 of Order 38 CPC. The operative part reads as under:

¶40

“ Issue show cause notice to the respondents as contemplated under law to furnish security for the warrant amount within 48 hours and in the meanwhile interim conditional attachment over the schedule property and notice to respondents by 12.04.2019. ”

¶41

Challenging the said order, the present appeal has been filed with the applications to condone the delay of 2114 days in filing the appeal vide I.A.No.1 of 2025 and to condone delay of 93 days in re-presenting the appeal.

¶42

Objection has not been filed in the aforesaid applications by the respondent/plaintiff.

¶43

¶44

RNT,J & BM,J C.M.A.No.715 of 2025

¶45

Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the I.A.No.657 of 2019, in which the order of conditional attachment has been passed, is still pending before the learned trial Court, and so the appellants having been under the impression that when that matter will be heard finally and the order will be passed finally in the said application, the appellants would get the opportunity for removal of the attachment. The affidavit in support of the I.A. does not show any other reason for not challenging that order under Rule 5 of Order 38 CPC.

¶46

So far as the Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is concerned, the order of attachment is only conditional attachment at the time of issuance of the notice to the defendants, also providing them the opportunity to furnish the security. On a specific query made to the learned counsel for the appellants that if the security was furnished or any objection was filed, she submits that the application is still pending. In the affidavit, there is no such averment that the security was furnished or the objection was filed.

¶47

The remedy of the defendants against an order of conditional attachment is either to furnish a security or to file the objections before the Court concerned. The remedy of the appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(q) CPC is not against the order passed under Rule 5 of Order 38 CPC but, against the order passed under Rule 6. In the submissions of the appellants’ counsel, any such order under Rule 6 has yet not been passed. The present appeal has been filed against the order passed under Rule 5.

¶48

¶49

RNT,J & BM,J C.M.A.No.715 of 2025

¶50