Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/2146/2026 of Meduri Kusuma Kumari Vs Kolusu Srinivasa Rao on 18 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI I.A.No.1 of 2026 In/and CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2146 OF 2026 Between: 1. Meduri Kusuma Kumari, W/o Late Bhaskara Rao,Hindu, aged about 71 years,
APHC010401402026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
SATURDAY, THE 19th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
In/and
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2146 OF 2026
Between:
1. Meduri Kusuma Kumari, W/o Late Bhaskara Rao,Hindu, aged about 71
years, Dependent,Resident of Door No. 10-163,Gannavaram Village and Mandal,Krishna District.
...Petitioner
AND
1. Kolusu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Kuchela Rao,aged about 43 years,R/o Maredumaka, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.
2. Kolusu Sridevi, W/o Srinivasa Rao, aged about 40 years,R/o Maredumaka, Kankipadu Mandal, Krishna District.
...Respondents
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 toBeing aggrieved by the Order dated 03.02.2026 passed in I.A. No.
338 of2025 in O.S. No. 600 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Civil Judge Junior Division, Vijayawada IA NO: 1 OF 2026
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 condone a delay of 369 days in ifling the CRP challenging the order dated 03.02.2026 passed in I.A. No. 338 of 2025 in O.S. No. 600 of 2015 by the I
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Vijayawada, Counsel for the Petitioner: ANASURI ESWAR SAI
Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following order:
In/and
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2146 OF 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard Sri A.Eswar Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner appearing through virtual mode.
2. The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.600 of 2015 on the file of I Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Vijayawada. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs/respondents for specific performance of contract of agreement of sale and for consequential relief of permanent injunction.
3. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 15.02.2016.
4. In the judgment it is recorded as under: “After issuance of summons, the defendant‟s summons were returned with an endorsement as „whereabouts were not known‟ and therefore, steps were ordered for service of summons on defendant and accordingly paper publication was issued to serve the same on defendant and inspite of the same, the defendant failed to appear before this Court and therefore, she was set ex-parte.”
5. For setting aside the ex-parte decree, the petitioner filed I.A.No.338 of 2025 along with an application for condonation of delay of 3194 days. The same has been dismissed by an order dated 03.02.2025.
6. Challenging the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed with delay of 369 days and for condonation of delay I.A.No.1 of 2026 has been filed.
7. This present Civil Revision Petition has also been filed belatedly 369 days. On consideration of the submission advanceed as also the cause shown in the affidavit, this Court is not satisfied with the cause shown. No material has been annexed with the affidavit to even prima facie inspire confidence for the cause being sufficient. The delay is not properly explained. There is no sufficient cause to condone the delay.
8. Even consideration of the submissions advanced as also the perusal of the impugned judgment, it is evident that there was delay of 3194 days in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. Learned Trial Court considered the cause shown before it but was not satisfied with such explanation as no medical certificate in proof of the plea taken by the petitioner was filed and so rejected the application. As per the judgment it is evident that inspite of service of summons through publication in the newspaper, the defendant did not appear. There is inordinate delay of almost 8 years and 9 months in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
9. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. No case of interference is made out in the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. There is no jurisdiction error.
10. I.A.No.1 of 2026 is rejected. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
____________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
Dated: 19.09.2026 AG
In/and CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2146 OF 2026
Dated: 19.09.2026 AG