Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/1466/2026 of Labudibariki Bimala Vs Labudibariki Guru on 7 May 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3299] FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1466/2026 Between: 1. LABUDIBARIKI BIMALA, W/O. LACHUMANNA, AGED 68 YEARS,
APHC010198162026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1466/2026
Between:
1. LABUDIBARIKI BIMALA, W/O. LACHUMANNA, AGED 68 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O.
PANIRANGINI
(V),
PEDABALABUDU
PANCHAYATH,
ARAKU
VALLEY
MANDAL,
ALLURI
SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT.
2. LABUDIBARIKI HARI, S/O. THAMMANNA, AGED 64 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O.
PANIRANGINI
(V),
PEDABALABUDU
PANCHAYATH
ARAKU
VALLEY
MANDAL,
ALLURI
SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. LABUDIBARIKI GURU, S/O. THAMMANNA, AGED 68 YEARS.
CULTIVATION,
R/O.
PANIRANGINI
(V),
PEDABALABUDU
PANCHAYATH
ARAKU
VALLEY
MANDAL,
ALLURI
SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT.
2. LABUDUBARIKI MADUNO, S/O. THAMMANNA, AGED 68 YEARS.
CULTIVATION,
R/O.
PANIRANGINI
(V),
PEDABALABUDU
PANCHAYATH
ARAKU
VALLEY
MANDAL,
ALLURI
SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT.
3. LABUDUBARIKI KIRAN KUMAR, S/O. HARI, AGED 60 YEARS, CULTIVATION, R/O.
PANIRANGINI
(V),
PEDABALABUDU
PANCHAYATH,
ARAKU
VALLEY
MANDAL,
ALLURI
SEETHARAMARAJU DISTRICT
...RESPONDENT(S):
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 to Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Judgment dated 07-03-2026 passed in I.A.No. No. 02 of 2026 in A.O.S.No. 01 of 2026, on the file of Agency Subordinate Judge, Paderu, Alluri Seetharrama Raju District 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 pleased to Suspend the Orders passed in I.A.No. No. 02 of 2026 in A.O.S.No.
01 of 2026, dated: 07-03-2026 on the file of the Agency Subordinate Judge, Paderu Alluri Seetharrama Raju District, pending disposal of the above revision Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. VAMSI KRISHNA VARANASI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1466 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.S. Virat, learned counsel representing Sri Vamsi Krishna Varanasi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff in A.O.S.No.1 of 2026, pending in the Court of the Agency Subordinate Judge, Paderu. By the order under challenge dated 07.03.2026 in I.A.No.2 of 2026 in the Said A.O.S, the learned Court has granted temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff, pending disposal of the main suit.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that summons were issued, which was received by the petitioners on 23.02.2026 and on the date fixed on 07.03.2026, the petitioners entered appearance by filing Vakalat, however, without hearing them, the learned Court granted the order of temporary injunction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a plea to that effect has been taken in ground No.5. However, there is nothing on record to substantiate the contention that the petitioners had appeared before the Court by filing Vakalat prior to passing of the order on 07.03.2026, the order itself shows that “in the meanwhile issue notice to the respondents by Registered Post”.
5. The submission advanced is that though they had entered appearance on 07.03.2026, as stated in the memorandum of grounds, an ex parte order was passed, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the learned Judge granted the temporary injunction.
6. Be that as it may, without going into the merits of the case, this Court is of the view that the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the same Court by filing appropriate application.
7. No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J
Dated:08.05.2026 KNN
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1466 of 2026
Dated:08.05.2026 KNN