Bondili Tara Bai (Died) Vs Bondili Lakshmi Bai

¶1

APHC010126282026

¶2

[3329]

¶3

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

¶4

THURSDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 749/2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

BONDILI TARA BAI (DIED), W/O SUBBULU SINGH,AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.6-418, NAGULAPUTTA STREET,NEAR AYODHYA RAMALAYAM, MARKAPURTOWNAND MANDAL,PRAKASAMDISTRICT.

¶9

BONDILI BHAGAVAN SINGH,, S/O SUBBULU SINGH,AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.6-403, NAGULAPUTTA STREET,BEHIND LIC OFFICE, MARKAPURTOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BONDILI SRINIVASA SINGH,, S/O SUBBULU SINGH,AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/OD.NO.6-402, NAGULAPUTTA STREET BEHIND LIC OFFICE, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶11

BONDILI SANKAR SINGH, (DIED), AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.7/520, NAGULAPUTTA STREET,BEHIND LIC OFFICE, MARKAPURTOWN AND MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶12

LALA JANAKI BAI,, W/O LATE SHOBHA RAM,AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.6-403, NAGULAPUTTA STREET, BEHIND LIC OFFICE, MARKAPURTOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶13

CHOWHAN TAKUR PADMA BAI,, W/O HEM SINGH,AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, NEAR SUNNAMBATTEELU, KONDEPALLI ROAD MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶14

2

¶15

BONDILI KAVERI BAI,, W/O LATE DADA SINGH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.6-417 A, NAGULAPUTTAVEEDHI,NEAR AYODHYA RAMALAYAM, MARKAPURTOWN AND MANDAL,PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶16

BONDILI VENKATA DAS,, S/O LATE DADA SINGH,AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO.6-417 A, NAGULAPUTTAVEEDHI,NEAR AYODHYA RAMALAYAM, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, RAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶17

BONDILI RAJANI BAI,, D/O LATE DADA SINGHAGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/O D.NO. 6- 417 A, NAGULAPUTTAVEEDHI, NEAR AYODHYA RAMALAYAM,MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT

¶18

...PETITIONER(S)

¶19

AND

¶20

BONDILI LAKSHMI BAI, (DIED)

¶21

BONDILIPADMA BAI, W/O BALAJI SINGH,AGED 55YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, R/OD.NO. 6-403,NAGULAPUTTA STREET, BEHIND LIC OFFICE,MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶22

BONDILI RAM SINGH, AGED 65 YEARS,R/O D.NO. 6-417A, NAGULAPUTTA STREET NEAR AYODHYA RAMALAYAM, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶23

BEEKAM SUGUNA BAI, W/O HANUMAN SINGH, AGED 71 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 6-403,NAGULAPUTTA STREET, BEHIND LIC OFFICE,MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶24

MANAM LALITHA BAI, W/O BALAJI SINGH,AGED 66 YEARS. HOUSE WIFE, R/O D.NO. 6-403,NEAR SUNNAMBATTEELU, KONDEPALLI ROAD,MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL PRAKASAM DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH.

¶25

BATHULA CHINNA ALLURAIAH, (DIED)

¶26

BATHULA NAGAMMA, W/O LATE BATHULA CHINNA ALLURAIAH, R/O D.NO.3-117, NEARPEDDA MASJID MARKAPUR TOWN AND

¶27

3

¶28

MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶29

BATHULA ALLURAIAH, S/O LATE BATHULA CHINNA ALLURAIAH, R/O D.NO.3-117,NEAR PEDDA MASJID, MARKAPUR TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶30

BATHULA BALAKRISHNA, S/O LATE BATHULA CHINNA ALLURAIAH, R/O D.NO.3117,NEAR PEDDA MASJID,. MARKAPURTOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶31

BATHUALA LAKSHMI, D/O LATE BATHULA CHINNA ALLURAIAH, R/O D.NO.7- 648, SIPANI BAZAR, MARKAPURTOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶32

PINNIKA VIJAYALAKSHMI, D/O LATE BATHULA CHINNA ALLURAIAH, R/O D.NO.1-203-Z-73-42, MARKAPURTOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶33

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶34

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 direct that lA No. 560 of 2017 in O.S. No. 333 of 2015 on the file of PrincipalCivil Judge (Junior Division)at Markapuramto be disposed off expeditiously with in a fixed time period and pass

¶35

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶36

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 direct the expeditious hearing i.e day to day hearing in lA No. 560 of 2017 in O.S. No. 333 of 2015 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Markapuram, pending final disposal of the CRP and pass

¶37

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶38

1.B VAMSI KRISHNA

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶40

1.

¶41

The Court made the following:

¶42

4

¶43

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶44

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 749/2026

¶45

ORDER:-

¶46

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to direct the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Markapuram to dispose of I.A.No.560 of 2017 in O.S.No.333 of 2015 expeditiously.

¶47

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. As issuance of notices to the respondents is not necessary in this matter, hence notices to the respondents are hereby dispensed with.

¶48

The petitioners herein are defendants and the respondents herein are plaintiffs in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the suit.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the plaintiffs filed a suit for partition in respect of the suit schedule properties. After considering the evidence and documents, the trial Court was pleased to pass a preliminary decree on 06.01.2017. After passing the preliminary decree, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.560 of 2017 in O.S.No.333 of 2015 for appointment of an advocate commissioner to identify and divide the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds and to pass a final decree. Even though I.A.No.560 of 2017 was filed seeking for appointment of an advocate commissioner for division of the properties by metes and bounds and as per the terms of the preliminary

¶50

5

¶51

decree, but the trial Court for one reason or the other kept the said I.A. pending. Hence, the Revision Petition.

¶52

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material placed on record. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners herein are defendants in the partition suit on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Markapuram. In the said suit a preliminary decreed was passed on 06.01.2017. It is also an admitted fact that immediately after passing a preliminary decree, the plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.560 of 2017 seeking for demarcation of schedule properties by metes and bounds and as per the terms of the preliminary decree and to pass final decree. It appears that even though I.A.No.560 of 2017 was filed in the year 2017, but as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the trial Court did not venture to pass final decree as required under Order 20 Rule 18 of C.P.C. It is further brought to the notice of this Court that High Court issued circular dated 20.10.2022, as per Clause-2 of the said circular, any pre-2017 matters should be taken up on priority basis for hearing in the entire District judiciary and the progress report should be sent to the High Court on monthly basis for placing the same before the Hon’ble Administrative Judge on the progress. In view of the circular issued by this Court, the trial Court is under the obligation to dispose of the same on priority basis. It seems that the trial Court except issuing notices in I.A.No.560 of 2017, no proceedings were elicited from the record what steps were taken by the trial Court, since nearly nine years lapsed after passing the preliminary decree. Be that as it may, this Court inclined to pass an order

¶53

6

¶54

directing the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.560 of 2017 on priority basis as per the circular, as early as possible. If the Advocate Commissioner was already appointed, if metes and bounds were identified, the said application can be disposed of, within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. Otherwise, it should be disposed of by following all the procedure required, within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.

¶55