Kudupudi Satya Venkata Siva Krishna @ Krishana Prasad Vs Seelam Satya Venkata Ramalakshmi

KUDUPUDI SATYA VENKATA SIVA KRISHNA @ KRISHANA PRASAD, S/O. LATE. GOVARDHANA RAO, AGED 41 YEARS, MALE, OCCUPATION. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, D.NO.85-28-5, FLAT NO. 5, 0PP. WATER TANK, R.T.C. COLONY, RAJAMAHENDRAVARAM - 533106, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.

¶11

SMT. KUDUPUDI SATYA DURGA DEVI,, W/O. LATE. KADALI SUBRAHMANEYM,AGED 39 YEARS. FEMALE, HOUSE WIFE, D/O. LATE. GOVARDHANA RAO,R/0.DOOR NO.9-1-17/1,R.D.O. OFFICE ROAD, AMALAPURAM, DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.

¶12

SMT. KUDUPUDI DEEPTIKA,, W/O. CHELLUBOINA DURGA PRASAD FEMALE, AGED 37 YEARS. RESIDING AT GANDIPETA AT HYDERABAD.

¶13

KUDUPUDI VIKASH,, S/O. RAJA BABU,(S/O. DAMAYANTHI) AGED 41 YEARS, MALE, OCCUPATION. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, FLAT NO.31/26/G2, ANJANA SIDHARTHA TOWERS, ROAD NO.2, SHIRDI SAI NAGAR, OPP.SUNDER GARDEN FUNCTION HALL, MANIKONDA JAGIR, MANIKONDA-500089, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, TELANGA STATE.

¶14

Page 2 of 5

¶15

KUDIPUDI SUSHMA,, D/O. RAJA BABU,(D/O. DAMAYANTHI) AGED 41 YEARS. FEMALE, UNMARRIED. FLAT NO.3-1/26/G2, ANJANA SIDHARTHA TOWERS, ROAD NO.2, SHIRDI SAI NAGAR, OPP.SUNDER GARDEN FUNCTION HALL, MANIKONDA JAGIR, MANIKONDA-500089, RANGA REDDY DISTRICT, TELANGA STATE.

¶16

...PETITIONER(S)

¶17

AND

¶18

SEELAM SATYA VENKATA RAMALAKSHMI, W/O. SIVANNARAYNA HINDU, AGED 36 YEARS,HOUSEWIFE, DOOR NO.8-41/1, PERURU(V) AMLAPURAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT

¶19

DOMMETI VENKATA SATYA KRISHNA PHANI PRASAD, S.O. RAMA CHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED 28 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, DOOR NO.8-41/1, PERURU(V) AMLAPURAM MANDAL, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.

¶20

KUDUPUDI RUKMINI, W/O. GOVARDHAN RAO, HINDU, AGED 55 DOOR NO.9-1-17, BACKSIDE OF COTTON GUEST ,AMALAPURAM. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.

¶21

DOMMETI SUJATHA, W/O. RAMACHANDRA RAO, HINDU, AGED 53, HOUSE WIFE,DUNGALA VARI STREET, AMALAPURAM. DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR KONASEEMA DISTRICT.

¶22

KUDUPUDI DAMAYANTHI, WIFE OF RAJU BABU, HINDU, AGED 49 DOOR NO.9-1-218,DEFENCE COLONY, LANGER HOUSE, MEHIDIPATNAM, HYDERABAD , TELANGANA STATE.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

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 be pleased to direct the Senior Civil Judges Court Amalapuram, East Godavari District adjudicate the claim/objection petition filed by the Petitioners/3rd parties in S.R.No.4902/2025 in E.P.1/2025 in O.S.No.68/2012

¶25

Page 3 of 5

¶26

dated 3-11-2025 and decided their rights, titles, and possession before delivery of the property to the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2/D.Hrs. and pass

¶27

IA NO: 1 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 dispense with the Certified Copy of the order dated 3-11-2025,in E.A.S.R.No.4902/2025 in E.P.1/2025 in O.S.No.68/2012, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge's Court, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, in the above C.R.P. and pass

¶29

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

¶30

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 grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.1/2025 in O.S.No.68/2012 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge‟s Court, Amalapuram, East Godavari District including recording of alleged delivery of the property to the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2/D.Hrs Pending disposal of claim/objection petition filed by the Petitioners and pass

¶31

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶32

1.K RATNA SAGAR

¶33

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶34

1.SRICHARAN TELAPROLU

¶35

The Court made the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

Heard Sri Ranga Rao, learned counsel representing Sri K. Ratna Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh, learned counsel representing Sri Sricharan Telaprolu, learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

¶38

Page 4 of 5

¶39

The above civil revision petition (hereinafter referred to as „revision‟) was filed assailing the order, dated 03.11.2025, in E.A.S.R. No. 4902/2025 in E.P.No.1 of 2025 in O.S.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.

¶40

The petitioners, claiming to be third parties to the execution proceedings, filed E.A.S.R.No.4902 of 2025 under Order XXI Rules 97, 99, 101 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.). The said application was returned on 03.11.2025 with the following endorsement:

¶41

“State how this petition is maintainable under Order XXI Rules 97, 98 and 100 after passing Final Decree and division of property by an advocate commissioner. Hence returned.

¶42

Time (7) days.”

¶43

The learned counsel for the revision petitioners represented the bundle by making the following endorsement:

¶44

“This decree passed against the judgment debtor, but not the petitioners and these petitioners are the third parties to the proceedings. I submitted 2 Supreme Court decisions 1) 1998 lawsuit SC 433 and 2) 2002 lawsuit SC 824, filed along with this representation.”

¶45

However, the application was again returned on 04.11.2025 with the following endorsement:

¶46

“The previous objection dated 03.11.2025 not complied. Hence returned time (7) days.”

¶47

Page 5 of 5

¶48

A perusal of the docket order discloses that the learned counsel for the petitioners represented the papers by citing two decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in support of their case and reported compliance. However, again returning the EASR, stating that the previous objections are not complied with, is untenable. If the Executing Court is not satisfied with the endorsement, it ought to have passed a speaking order by looking into the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Repeated returning of the papers, despite reporting compliance, is impermissible.

¶49

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioners to resubmit the returned bundle to the Executing Court with a fresh endorsement, within ten days from the receipt of a copy of the order. Thereupon, the Executing Court shall consider the same. If the Executing Court is not satisfied with the endorsement, it shall hear the counsel and pass a speaking order, strictly as per law. No order as to costs.

¶50

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶51

___________________________ JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶52

Date: 10.07.2026 IKN

¶53

Whether the order is :

¶54

Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No

¶55

Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No

Kudupudi Satya Venkata Siva Krishna @ Krishana Prasad v. Seelam Satya Venkata Ramalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kudupudi Satya Venkata Siva Krishna @ Krishana Prasad v. Seelam Satya Venkata Ramalakshmi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gudipati James Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

M Y S Subramanyam Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Sri Kondru Vijaya Lakshmi Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

G Sreelatha Vs N Sreenivasa Rao

Uppalapati Pattabhi Ramaiah, Vs Pamulapati Aruna

Chappidi Ravindranatha Reddy Vs Challa Narasamma