Menta Surya Prakash Rao Vs Chatta Rathaiah

MENTA SURYA PRAKASH RAO, S/O. GOVINDAIAH, AGED 74.YEARS, RIO. RANGUBAVI VEEDHI, PADAMATA STREET, SEETHARAMAPURAM VILLAGE AND MANDAL, S.P.S.R. NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

CHATTA RATHAIAH, S/O. VENKATA RAMAIAH, AGED 60 YEARS, R/O. REGULACHELAKA VILLAGE, C.S.PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶13

CHATTA CHINA VENKATA RAMAIAH DIED, A

¶14

CHATTA ARJUNA RAO, S/O CHINNA VENKATA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, LANDLORD, R/O. REGULACHELAKA VILLAGES C.S.PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶15

CHATTA THIRUPATHI NAIDU, S/O CHINNA VENKATA RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS LANDLORD, RFO. REGULACHELAKA VILLAGE, C.S.PURAM MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

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 pass an order for early disposal of O.S.No. 135 of 2023 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri as early as possiable, prefarably within a period of six months and pass

¶18

2

¶19

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶20

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 pass an order for early disposal of O.S.No. 135 of 2023 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri as early as possiable, preferably within a period of six months and pass

¶21

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶22

1.YADAVALLI RAMESH

¶23

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶24

¶25

The Court made the following:

¶26

3

¶27

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 60/2026

¶29

ORDER:-

¶30

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking for early disposal of O.S.No.135 of 2023 pending on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanigiri as early as possible, preferably within a period of six months.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner before this Court is that the petitioner herein is Defendant No.4 in the suit, who acquired the subject suit schedule property as bonafide purchaser and after his acquisition he was in possession and enjoyment of the subject property. The subject property is an ancestral property as admitted by all the parties concerned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the suit is filed in the year 2023, but so far service of summons in respect of Defendant No.3 is not completed and no steps were taken by the trial Court to complete the service of summons against Defendant No.3 by following other procedure i.e., substitute service as per Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC. Without doing so, the trial Court has been postponing the matter time and again only for service of summons against Defendant No.3.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner further stated that after filing the suit and before filing the written statement by the Defendant No.1, he died and Defendant Nos.2 and 4 filed their respective written statements. Therefore, the

¶34

4

¶35

suit is being postponed for service of summons in respect of Defendant No.3 contrary to the object of Order 5 Rule 20 CPC.

¶36

However, learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that there would be a direction by this Court directing the trial Court to proceed further expeditiously by invoking substitute service as contemplated under Order 5 Rule 20 of CPC and complete the trial at the earliest. He also relied upon the judgment dated 07.12.2020 of this Court in Pelluri Venkata Hanumantha Krishna Murthy Sharma vs. Pelluri Venkata Lakshmi Narasimha Rao , the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:

¶37

“11) The year 1999 was observed as “International Year of Older Persons”. In view of the “National Policy for Older Persons” adopted by the Government of India, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad issued a Circular in ROC.No.4790/1999/OP Cell-E, dated 02.11.1999 directing all the Judicial Officers in the State to identify and dispose of matters in which persons above “65 years” of age are involved, on priority basis.

¶38

14) It is not sufficient to respect and honour the senior citizens in the late evening of their life by giving some concessions in bus, rail and Air fares and giving priority in allotting lower births in the trains and comfortable seats in buses. The real respect and honour to the senior citizens is to render speedy justice to them for which they would have a legitimate expectation.

¶39

15) It is the duty of the Courts to see that the senior citizens shall be given priority for early disposal of their cases whether those are civil or criminal or service or

¶40

5

¶41

any type of litigation to enable them to enjoy the fruits of litigation during their life time. The Courts have to remember that the right to speedy trial of cases before the Courts is recognized to be a part of fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶42

17) Before parting with this case, we feel it appropriate to extract the following observation of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajindra Singh v. Prem Mai¹ at para No.11 as hereunder:

¶43

“People in India are simply disgusted with this state of affairs, and are past loosing faith in the judiciary because of the inordinate delay in disposal of cases. We request the authorities concerned to do the needful in the matter urgently to ensure speedy disposal of cases if the people’s faith in the judiciary is to remain.””

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the circular dated 27.06.2025 issued by this Court for speedy disposal of the suits relating to the senior citizens. Admittedly in the instant case, the petitioner is a senior citizen as such he is entitled for speedy disposal as per circular dated 27.06.2025.

¶45

In view of the reasons stated above and in view of the ratio laid down by this Court as extracted above and pursuant to the circular issued by this Court dated 27.06.2025, this Court inclined to direct the trial court to proceed further by initiating alternative substitute steps as required under Order 5 Rule

¶46

1 (2007) 11 SCC 37

¶47

6

¶48

20 of CPC and to get it serve the summons against Defendant No.3. After such service of summons and after inviting written statement of Defendant No.3 by granting ample opportunity, proceed with the trial as earliest as possible and not later than the period of nine (9) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶49