Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/2027/2026 of Chittepu Lakshmi Reddy Vs Sri Sitarama Educational Society, on 23 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 24 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2027/2026 BETWEEN: 1. CHITTEPU LAKSHMI REDDY, S/o. C. NARAPU REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R KADAPA CITY – 516004. 2. CHITTEPU PADMAVATHI,
APHC010378032026
IN THE H
(
MONDAY,
THE HONOURABLE S
CIVIL REV
BETWEEN:
1. CHITTEPU LAKSH
ABOUT 78 YEAR
KADAPA CITY – 5
2. CHITTEPU PADM
ABOUT 64 YEAR
KADAPA CITY – 5
3. CHITTEPU VENK
REDDY, AGED
YERRAMUKKAPA
4. KANUPARTHI UJW
AGED
ABOUT
YERRAMUKKAPA
5. CHITTEPU VENK
LAKSHMI REDDY,
1,YERRAMUKKAP
6. BYREDDY ANUS
REDDY, AGED
YERRAMUKKAPA
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE 24th DAY OF AUGUST 2026
PRESENT
SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR
VISION PETITION No. 2027/2026
HMI REDDY, S/o. C. NARAPU REDDY
S, R/o. D.No.1/1762-1,YERRAMUKKA
16004.
MAVATHI, W/o. C. LAKSHMI REDDY,
S, R/o. D.No.1/1762-1,YERRAMUKKA
16004.
KATA MOHAN REDDY, S/o. C. LA
ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/o. D.No.1/
ALLE, KADAPA CITY.
WALA, W/o. C. VENKATA MOHAN R
YEARS,
R/o.
D.No.11
ALLE, KADAPA CITY -516004.
KATA MADHUSUDHAN REDDY, S
, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/o. D.No.1
PALLE, KADAPA CITY – 516004.
SHA, W/o. C. VENKATA MADHSU
ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/o. D.No.11
ALLE, KADAPA CITY - 516004
...PETITIO
AND
R RAO
, AGED
APALLE,
AGED
APALLE,
AKSHMI
/1762-1,
REDDY,
1762-1,
S/o. C.
111762-
UDHAN
1762-1,
NER(S)
1. SRI
SITARAMA
EDUCATIONAL
SOCIETY,
KADAPA,
REGISTRATION
No.145/1981,REP.
BY
ITS
CHIEF
ADMINISTRATOR-CUM-CORRESPONDENT,AUTHORISED
EXECUTIVE, YENUGA GOPAL REDDY,S/O. Y. BASI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/o. D.No.1/256-3C-5, SRI YSR M
DEGREE COLLEGE,
2. YENUGA SURYA DEVI, W/o. Y. GOPAL REDDY, AGED ABOUT
YEARS,
R/o.
D.No.1/256-3C-5,SRI
YSRM
DEGREE
COLLEGE, SWASTHIK NAGAR, KADAPA CITY, KADAPA
DISTRICT – 516001.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the above named Petitioners beg to present this Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition aggrieved by the in action of the Court below in not disposing the O.S.No.46/2021 on the file of the Court of the VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa for the following among other grounds.
Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1.VARREY VENKATA NAGA VISHNU TEJA
2.VARREY VENTAKATA NAGAVISHNU TEJA
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/ plaintiffs seeking a direction to the learned trial Court for expeditious disposal of O.S.No.46 of 2021, on the file of learned VI Additional District Judge, Kadapa, filed by the petitioners/ Plaintiffs seeking specific performance and consequential permanent injunction over the suit schedule property and placed reliance on Judicial Notification No.3/SO/2016, issued by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh on 15.06.2016.
2. According to Rule 3 of the said notification, cases pertaining to partition, declaration, specific performance, possession, mandatory injunction, appeals, damages, easements, trademarks, copyrights, patents and intellectual property rights, shall be disposed of within 24 months from the date of appearance or deemed appearance of the defendant-respondent in the proceedings.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that despite lapse of five years, there is no progress in the case. Therefore, learned counsel prayed to direct the learned trial Court for disposal of the suit expeditiously.
4. The Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs State of Uttarpradesh & Others1 has held that constitutional courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every court, including High Courts is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the Judges of the Courts concerned. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the Courts concerned. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations.
4. In view of the said submissions, the present Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, directing the learned trial Court to make an endeavour for early disposal of suit, in accordance with law, basing upon the seniority of pending cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 24.08.2026 Harin
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
C.R.P.No. 2027 OF 2026
Date: 24-08-2026
Harin