Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/2548/2025 of Perumalla Venkaa Krishna Kumar Vs Mutha Rao Saheb Sarvarayudu, on 1 April 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3332] THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2547/2025 Between: 1. PERUMALLA VENKATA KRISHNA KUMAR, S/O. PADMANABHAM,
APHC010595222024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THURSDAY,THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2547/2025
Between:
1. PERUMALLA
VENKATA
KRISHNA
KUMAR,
S/O.
PADMANABHAM, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC.BUSINESS R/O.
D.NO.25-2-6,
KOMMIREDDYVARI
STREET
NEAR
TTD
KALYANA MANDAPAM, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. MUTHA RAO SAHEB SARVARAYUDU, S/O. BANGARAYYA, R/O. D.NO.25-6-9, GANJAM VARI STREET KAKINADA, KAKINADA
DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE
EAST
GODAVARI
DISTRICT, A.P
2. PENUGONDA KRISHNA RAO DIED, A
3. PENUGONDA RUKMANI, W/O. KRISHNA RAO AGED 55
YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. D.NO.25-6-2, GANJAM VARI
GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P
4. SRIKOKOLAPU BHAVANA, W/O. SRINIVAS AGED 30 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE, R/O. FLAT NO C.4041, CAUVERY
SERENITY REGHAVENDRA RAO ROAD, YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE DISTRICT
5. KOKY VENKATA SANDHYA SRI HARIKA, W/O. PRADEEP, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO B.5005, MAYFAIR ANTHOM
APARTMENTS BELAANDUR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA
STATE DISTRICT
6. PADALA BALA VEERA VENKATA RAMANA, S/O. SRIRAMULU, AGED 46 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.23-7-11/3, KOMMIREDDYVARI
STREET, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P
7. PADALA SATYAVEDAMANI, S/O. SRIRAMULU, AGED 46
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.23-7-11/3, KOMMIREDDYVARI STREET, KAKINADA, KAKINADA
DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE
EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P
8. PADALA BHEEMESWARA RAO, S/O. SRIRAMULU, AGED 46
YEARS, R/O. D.NO.23-7-11/3, KOMMIREDDYVARI STREET
KAKINADA,
KAKINADA
DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE
EAST
GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P
...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 toaggrieved by the Common Order dated 09-12-2024 in EA.NO.502 of 2024 in EA.N0.9 of 2017 in EP.No.25 of 2016 in OS.No.86
of 2013 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Erstwhile East Godavari District IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 to stay of all further proceedings in EP.No.25 of 2016 in OS.No.86 of 2013 including operation of Common Order dated 09-12- 2024 in EA.NO.502 of 2024 in EA.No.9 of 2017 in EP.No.25 of 2016 on the file of the court of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Erstwhile East Godavari District pending consideration of the above revision petition in the interest of justice and pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAMA MURTY P V S A
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2548/2025
Between:
1. PERUMALLA
VENKAA
KRISHNA
KUMAR,
S/O.
PADMANABHAM, AGED 39 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O.
D.NO.25-2-6, KOMMIREDDYVARI STREET NEARTTD KALYANA
MANDAPAM, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE
EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. MUTHA RAO SAHEB SARVARAYUDU, S/O. BANGARAYYA, R/O. D.NO.25-6-9, GANJAM VARI STREET, KAKINADA, KAKINADA
DISTRICT,
ERSTWHILE
EAST
GODAVARI
DISTRICT, A.P
2. PENUGONDA KRISHNA RAO, (DIED)
3. PENUGONDA RUKMANI, W/O. KRISHNA RAO AGED 55
YEARS, OCC.- HOUSE V/IFE, R/O. D.NO.25-6-2, GANJAM VARI
GODAVARI DISTRICT, A.P
4. SRIKOKOLAPU BHAVANA, W/O. SRINIVAS AGED 30 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE, R/O. FLAT NOC.4041, CAUVERY SERENITY
REGHAVENDRA
RAO
ROAD,
YESHWANTHPURA,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA STATE DISTRICT
5. KOKY VENKATA SANDHYA SRI HARIKA, W/O. PRADEEP, AGED 25 YEARS, R/O. FLAT NO B.5005, MAYFAIR ANTHOM
APARTMENTS, BELAANDUR, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA
STATE 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 the above named petitioner begs to present the above Revision Petition in this Hon’ble Court aggrieved by the Common Order dated 09-12-2020 in EA.NO.497 of 2024 in EP.No.25 of 2016 in O.S.No.86 of 2013 on the file of the Court of the 111 Additional District Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Erstwhile East Godavari District IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 to dispense with certified copy of common order dated 09-12- 2024 in EA.N0.497 of 2024 in EP.No.25 of 2016 in OS.No.86 of 2013 on the file of the court of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, Kakinada District, Erstwhile East Godavari District, at present, time being pending consideration of the above revision petition in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. RAMA MURTY P V S A
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. V ROOPESH KUMAR REDDY
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.
COMMON ORDER:
Assailing the legality and correctness of the common orders passed by the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, in E.A.No.497 of 2024 in E.P.No.25 of 2016 in O.S.No.86 of 2013 and E.A.No.502 of 2024 in E.A.No.9 of 2017 in E.P.No.25 of 2016 dated 09.12.2024, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
2. As both the revisions are interlinked, they are heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.
3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petitions are that the respondents/decree holders filed a suit in O.S.No.86 of 2013 for specific performance agreement of sale. The said suit has been decreed on 13.10.2015 and had attained finality. To execute the said decree, the respondents filed E.P.No.25 of 2016 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Kakinada. In the said E.P., the petitioners who are the Judgement Debtors were set ex parte.Further, in the said E.P., the E.A.No.9 of 2017 has been filed by third party which is a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC.In the said E.A. also the petitioner/judgement debtors were set ex parte to set aside the said ex parte orders, the petitioner/judgement debtors got filed E.A.No.502 of 2024 along with E.A.No.497 of 2024 under Order XXI Rule 106 and Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code. The said applications have been opposed by the respondents by filing counter. After hearing parties, the Court below dismissed both the applications. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petitions are filed.
4. Heard Sri P.S.V.A.Ram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner/judgement debtor and Sri Rupesh Kumar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the execution application before the Court below and the grounds of revision submitted that the petitioners who are the judgement debtors were set ex parte both in the main E.P as well as in the claim petition vide E.A.No.9 of 2017 (filed by some third party).To set aside the ex parte orders, the petitioners filed 3 E.As i.e., E.A.No.502 of 2024 in E.A.No.9 of 2017 and E.A.No.497 of 2017 in E.P.No.25 of 2016 and also filed application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay of 7 days in filing the said applications. The said application was not even numbered by the Court below on the ground that they are not maintainable by virtue of amended provision.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Court below dismissed both the applications on the ground of delay erroneously without even looking into the legal position. If the said ex parte orders are not set aside, the petitioners right to contest the E.P. will be defeated, as such, prayed to allow the C.R.Ps. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Ch.Krishnaiah v. Ch.PrasadaRao1.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the judgement debtors are not showing any interest in the E.P. proceedings. The decree for specific performance had attained finality, and only to drag on the E.P. proceedings, such applications came be to be filed. As such, no 1 2009 (6) ALD 195 (FB)
indulgence need to be shown, however, the law is very clear that the amended provisions will not apply to the State of Andhra Pradesh as it was not amended and Section 5 application is very much maintainable and accordingly, prayed to pass appropriate orders.He further submitted that in the event this Court is inclined to interfere, a direction may be given to the Court below to dispose of the EP in a time bound manner as the E.P. is of the year 2016 and as already 10 years have been lapsed.
8. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is not in dispute that the suit for specific performance filed by the respondent/Decree Holders in O.S.No.86 of 2013 has been decreed and the same had attained finality. To execute the said decree and judgment dated 13.10.2015, the petitioners filed E.P.No.25 of 2016. In the said E.P., some third parties filed a claim petition vide E.A.No.9 of 2017. The judgement debtors were set ex parte in both E.P.No.25 of 2016 and E.A.No.9 of 2017 and they filed two petitions vide E.A.No.9 of 2024 to set aside the ex parte decree passed in E.P.No.25 of 2016 and E.A.No.502 of 2024 to set aside the aside the ex parte decree passed in E.A.No.9 of 2017. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that along with the execution applications, the judgement debtors also got filed one more Execution Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, to condone the delay of 7days in filing the applications to set aside the ex parte orders. The Court below did not even number the same.
10. The judgement relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Ch. Krishnaiah vs. Ch.Prasada Rao, the Full Bench has categorically held that Order XXI the amendments which took place to the provisions of Principal Act insofar as Order XXI Rule 106 of CPC is concerned, these two provisions have no effect on the amendment made by Andhra Pradesh High Court or to say in other words, they do not in any manner affect Andhra Pradesh amendment as promulgated by High Court. Therefore, it held that notwithstanding the repeal provisions in 1999 and 2002 amendments to CPC, Order XXI Rule 106(4) of CPC as inserted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 122 of CPC enables a party to proceedings to file application under Section 5 of Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing an application to set aside ex parte order passed under Order XXI Rule 106(1) of CPC.
11. The Court below has failed to see the said full Court judgment of this Court and thereby dismissed the execution applications on the sole ground that the ex parte decree was filed belatedly beyond the limitation period and the Court has no power to condone the delay.The said findings are erroneous and the same warrants interference of this Court and liable to be set aside.
12. The order passed in E.A.No.497 of 2024 in E.P.No.25 of 2016 in O.S.No.86 of 2013 and E.A.No.502 of 2024 in E.A.No.9 of 2017 in E.P.No.25 of 2016 dated 09.12.2024 is hereby set aside and the same are remitted back to the Court below with a direction to adjudicate the same and also to number E.A. filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act read with Section 151 CPC if in order and to decide the said applications within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the enquiry in the said applications. Till deciding the said E.As.,the Court below shall not proceed with the E.P.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed.There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________________
JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
Date: 02ndApril, 2026 Note: Issue C.C. by 07.04.2026
B/o
RKS