CRP/2050/2023 of GOLLA ERANNA Vs GOLLA RAMACHANDRA on 8 March 2026

1. GOLLA ERANNA, CULTIVATION, R/O

1. GOLLA RAMACHA YEARS, OCC CU VILLAGE, KANEKA

2. GOLLA NAGARAJ YEARS, OCC C KANEKAL MANDA ANANTAPUR DIST

3. GOLLA KARIYAMM YEARS, OCC C VILLAGE, KANEKA

4. GOLLA LAKSHMI, AMBAPURAM VI DISTRICT.

5. GOLLA NAGAMMA OCC CULTIVATIO KANEK

THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PR AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) DAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT ABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMAL REVISION PETITION NO: 2050/2023 , S/O LATE BADAPPA, AGED 38 O. D. NO. 7-56, AMBAPURAM VILLAG AND ANDRA, S/O. LATE GOLLA BADAP ULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO. 6-90, AL MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT U, , S/O. LATE GOLLA BADAPPA CULTIVATION, R/O. AMBAPURA AL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT. RICT. MA, W/O. LATE GOLLA BADAPP CULTIVATION, R/O. D. NO. 4-23, AL MANDAL, ANANTAPUR DISTRICT W/O. GOLLA SANNA REDDY, AGE ILLAGE, KANEKAL MANDAL, A, W/O. GOLLA THIPPESWAMY, AG N, R/O. D. NO. 2-67, AMBAPUR ...RES RADESH )

LAPATI YEARS, OCC GE ...PETITIONER PPA, AGED 61 AMBAPURAM T. A, AGED 52 AM VILLAGE, AL MANDAL, PA, AGED 67 AMBAPURAM T. ED 47 YEARS, ANANTAPUR ED 44 YEARS, RAM VILLAGE, SPONDENT(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 aggrieved by the non disposal of Interlocutory Application in I.A. No. 471 of 2013 in O.S.No.93 of 2009 on the file of the court of Learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, the above-named petitioner prefers this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. The Court made the following order:

Aggrieved by the non-disposal of Interlocutory Application No.471 of 2013 in Original Suit No.93 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg, the present Civil Revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are as follows:

The petitioner herein is plaintiff No.4, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are defendants and respondent Nos.3 to 5 are plaintiff Nos.1 to 3 in O.S.No.93 of 2009 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg.

ii) The plaintiff Nos.1 to 4 filed suit in O.S.93 of 2009 for partition and separate possession of their 4/6th share in the plaint schedule property. The said suit was preliminarily decreed with costs on 01.10.2012 holding that plaintiffs and defendants are entitled to an equal 1/6th share each in plaint schedule property and that the plaintiffs are entitled for partition and separate possession of their 4/6th share in suit schedule property and the defendants were directed to partition the suit schedule property into six equal shares and allot four such shares to plaintiffs within two months. Subsequently, on 05.06.2013, plaintiff No.4 filed Interlocutory Application No.471 of 2013 seeking to pass a final decree in terms of preliminary decree dated 01.10.2012 by appointing an Advocate Commissioner.

iii) To the said application, the respondents/defendants filed their objections stating that the Advocate Commissioner visited the suit schedule property without their knowledge and neither the respondents nor their counsel were present at the time of the visit of the Advocate Commissioner. It is further contended that the boundaries and schedule mentioned by the Advocate Commissioner are not proper. The Advocate commissioner did not serve any work memo on the respondents, even though they were present in the village.

iv) Aggrieved by the non-disposal of the I.A.No.471 of 2013 in O.S.NO.93 of 2009, despite the lapse of more than 10 years, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard Smt Nimmagadda Revathi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the Court below failed to observe that the Appeal Suit filed by the defendants was dismissed long back in the year 2013, thereby confirming the preliminary decree passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Rayadurg. The Court below ought to have observed that the Second Appeal filed by the defendants in the suit vide SA SR 7244/2016 has neither been registered nor admitted and that no stay order has been granted in the said appeal against the passing of the final decree. She further submitted that the Court below ought to have disposed of the Interlocutory Application as expeditiously as possible in view of the fact that no stay order has been passed by the appellate Court against the passing of final decree.

5. Perused the material available on record and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

6. It is not in dispute that the suit in O.S. No. 93 of 2009 was preliminarily decreed on 01.10.2012. Thereafter, the petitioner, who is Plaintiff No. 4, filed Interlocutory Application No. 471 of 2013 on 05.06.2013 seeking to pass a final decree in terms of the preliminary decree by appointing an Advocate Commissioner. The present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed on 19.08.2023 complaining of non-disposal of the said application.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the appeal preferred by the defendants against the suit was dismissed in the year 2013, thereby confirming the preliminary decree, and though a Second Appeal is stated to have been filed, the same has neither been registered nor admitted, and no stay has been granted. It is further contended that despite lapse of more than ten years, the Interlocutory Application has not been disposed of. Since the relief sought is innocuous, hearing the other side can be dispensed with.

8. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the Hon’ble Supreme in several judgments has held that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court ought not to fix a time limit for disposal of cases by the subordinate courts, as the same would amount to interference with the judicial discretion and docket management of the courts below.

9. In view of the above settled legal position, this Court is not inclined to fix any specific time frame for disposal of the Interlocutory Application. However, considering the fact that the Interlocutory Application has been pending since the year 2013, the Court below is directed to dispose of I.A.No.471 of 2013 in Original Suit No.93 of 2009, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI 09.03.2026 MP

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2050 of 2023

09.03.2026

MP