Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/731/2025 of P.Ramesh Reddy, Vs Nagolu Eswar Reddy, on 8 March 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH MONDA TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. P.RAMESH REDDY,, S/O. LATE P.NAGI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS R/O. D.NO.20 TIRUPATI CHITTOOR DISTRICT. 1. NAGOLU ESWAR REDDY, S/o. N.Subba Reddy,
APHC010130202025
IN TH
MONDA
TWO
THE HONOURA
CIVIL R
Between:
1. P.RAMESH REDDY
YEARS R/O. D.NO
TIRUPATI CHITTOO
1. NAGOLU ESWAR R
Business
R/o.
SrinivasapuramRen
Petition under Artic
circumstances stated in
pleased toThe above-na
Civil Revision Petition ag
630 of 2024 in O.S. No.
Senior Civil Judge at Tiru
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Secti
in the affidavit filed in su
may be pleased to grant
2021 on the file of the C
during the pendency of th
IA NO: 2 OF 2025
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
AY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH,
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL
REVISION PETITION NO: 731/2025
Y,, S/O. LATE P.NAGI REDDY, AGE
.20-3-208, RAYALA VARI VEEDHI, Y
OR DISTRICT.
AND
REDDY, S/o. N.Subba Reddy, Aged a
D.N0.19-3-2/G/8
part,
igunta Road, Tirupati.
...R
le 227 of the Constitution of India,pra
n the grounds filed herein,the High
med Petitioners beg to present this M
gainst the order dated 13.02.2025 pa
124 of 2021 on the file of the Court o
upati,
on 151 CPC praying that in the circum
pport of the petition, the High Court m
t a stay of all further proceedings in
Court of the Additional Senior Civil J
he above Revision Petition and may p
RC,J
DESH
LAPATI
ED ABOUT 45
YERRA MITTA,
...PETITIONER
about 36 years.
19th
ward,
RESPONDENT
aying that in the
Court may be
Memorandum of
assed in I.A. No.
of the Additional
mstances stated
may be pleased
O.S No. 124 of
Judge, Tirupati,,
ass
RC,J
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 may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 09.05.2025 granted by this Hon’ble Court in C R P No. 731 of 2025 and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.VENKAT SAILENDRA G
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.MOPURU ABHISHEK
The Court made the following:
RESERVED ON
24.02.2026
PRONOUNCED ON
09.03.2026
UPLOADED ON
09.03.2026
RC,J
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
This Civil Revision Petition is filed challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 13.02.2025 passed in I.A.No.630 of 2024 in O.S.No.124 of 2021 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Tirupati.
2. The Revision Petitioner is the respondent/ plaintiff, while respondent is the petitioner/defendant in I.A.No.630 of 2024 in O.S.No.124 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Tirupati.
3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that:
(i) The Revision Petitioner filed the suit vide O.S.No.124 of 2021 for specific performance of agreement of sale against the respondent. In the said suit the petitioner filed petition vide I.A.No.630 of 2024 under Order IX Rule- 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 19.10.2022 contending that the suit summons were not served on him, since were sent to wrong address only to get ex parte decree. The plaintiff by filing counter resisted the claim made by the defendant contending that the defendant having received legal notice sent to the same address, somehow successfully managed to return the notices, which were later served through paper publication and consequent to RC,J
absence of the defendant, he was set ex parte on 23.08.2022 and ex parte decree was passed on 19.10.2022. It is further contended in the counter that though the defendant had knowledge of the suit proceedings, he did not participate in the suit proceedings and when the E.P.proceedings reached midway, he filed this petition only to drag on the proceedings endlessly.
(ii) The learned trial Judge, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the petition subject to payment of costs, observing that suit summons were not served on the defendant and were served only through paper publication, which is a less reliable method of service.
(iii) The said order has been assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.
4. Heard Sri Venkat Sailendra G., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mopuru Abhishek, learned counsel for respondent.
5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. The record discloses that admittedly the suit summons was not served on the defendant, which was served by way of substitute service of publication. The main contention of the defendant is that he had not been residing in the locality wherein the publication was made.
RC,J
7. The principle that courts should dispose of cases on their merits rather than technicalities is a cornerstone of the Indian judicial system, frequently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court to ensure that substantive justice prevails over procedural formalities. The core philosophy is that procedural rules are "handmaids of justice," intended to facilitate, not hinder, the resolution of disputes.
8. The Court below having considered the fact that non service of summons is a ground to set aside the ex parte order allowed the petition filed under Order IX, Rule-13 of Code of Civil Procedure.
9. The learned trial Judge having considered the facts and attendant circumstances of the case rightly allowed the petition and the same does not deserve any interference of this court. The Civil Revision petition being meritless deserves dismissal.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 9TH March, 2026.
RR
RC,J