Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/858/2026 of PRATHIPATI SRINIVASA RAO Vs GOGINENI SUBBA RAO on 9 April 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 858/2026 Between: 1. PRATHIPATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O
APHC010079832026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 858/2026
Between:
1. PRATHIPATI SRINIVASA RAO, S/O P VISHNU MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT FF 1, SRLS COLONY, VAIBHAV STUDIO, YENAMALAKUDURU, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA
PRADESH - 520007.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. GOGINENI SUBBA RAO, S/o. Sankara Rao, aged about 55 years.
Properties R/o. D.No.5-171, Javvarupet, Machilipatnam.
...RESPONDENT
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 set aside the order dated 27.11.2025 passed in E.P.
NO. 27/2017 IN O.S. NO. 53/2014 by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada settling terms for sale in respect of the E.P. Schedule Property and pass 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 stay all further proceedings in E.P. No. 27 of 2017 on the file of court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Vijayawada including the sale proclaimed on 20.01.2026, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. JADA SRAVAN KUMAR
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
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 learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this revision, the petitioner only seeks to challenge the docket order dated 27.11.2025 which reads as follows: <Heard the counsel for D.Hr. J.Dr called absent. No representation. On hearing Counsel for petitioner, the following terms are settled for sale of E.P. schedule property. Schedule of property Schedule A:
Schedule property is situated at Yenamalakuduru, Penamaluru Mandal, Krishna District, of SRO Patamata, in an extent of 241.36 Sq. Yds., of vacant house site in RS.No.89/2, is being bounded by:
EAST 33.0 width Panchayat Road – 29.6 feet SOUTH Property of Gaddi Narasimha Reddy – 73.6 feet WEST Property of Gollapalli Subba Lakshmi – 29.3 feet NORTH Property of Janapala Narasimha Rao – 74.5 feet
Within the above boundaries an undivided and unspecified joint right in an extent of 39 Sq. Yds., out of 241.36 Sq. Yds., Schedule B
Schedule property situated at Flat No.FF1, 1st floor, Sai Nilayam constructed in A schedule property in an extent 1000 Sq. Ft including car parking of 80 Sq. Feet, is being bounded by EAST Open to sky SOUTH Open to sky WEST Stairs and Open to sky NORTH Open to sky
Within the above A and B schedule properties an undivided and unspecified half share of the J.Dr.
D.Hr value Rs.25,00,000/- J.Dr value not furnished. Amin value Rs.30,00,000/- Market value Rs.29,36,200/- Publish in Eenadu Telugu Daily in NTR District Edition. Proclaim and sell on 20.01.2026. Further hearing on 27.01.2026.
Hence, call on 20.01.2026 for filing publication and sale.=
3. The petitioner being J.Dr in the said Execution Petition, having not appeared before the executing Court and in view of the aforesaid order, the petitioner cannot seek to challenge the said docket order before this Court. If at all, the petitioner is aggrieved, he has to approach the executing Court itself and take appropriate steps for redressal of his grievance, if any.
4. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to approach the executing Court and seek redressal of his grievance. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. Date: 10.04.2026 ARR
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 858/2026
Date: 10.04.2026
ARR