Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/113/2026 of SEELAM PULLAMMA Vs AILURI RAMASITA on 12 February 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3163] FRIDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 113/2026 Between: 1. SEELAM PULLAMMA, W/O
APHC010724212025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 113/2026
Between:
1. SEELAM PULLAMMA, W/O SIVA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC
PROPERTIES, R/O G. KOTHURU VILLAGE, TIRUVURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. AILURI RAMASITA, W/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED 52 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST AND ADVOCATE, R/O TIRUVURU VILLAGE
AND MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT -
521235.
2. SEELAM PULLA REDDY, (DIED)
3. SEELAM SARASWATHI, W/O LATE PULLA REDDY, AGED 74
YEARS, HOUSEWIFE, R/O G. KOTHURU VILLAGE, TIRUVURU
MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT -
521235.
4. YARAMALA SAMARAJYAM, W/O SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED 61
YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O G. KOTHURU VILLAGE, TIRUVURU MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA
DISTRICT - 521235.
5. SEELAM SIVA REDDY, S/O LATE PULLA REDDY, AGED 57 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, R/O G. KOTHURU VILLAGE, TIRUVURU
MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT -
521235.
6. THALLAPUREDDY LEELA SHIVALEELA, W/O SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED 45 YEARS,. R/O KONATHALAPALII (POST), VEERULAPADU
MANDAL, NTR DISTRICT, ERSTWHILE KRISHNA DISTRICT 521181.
...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 non-numbering and non-deciding of E.A. G.L. No.
891 of 2025 in EA No.59 of 2024 in E.P. No. 24 of 2017 in O.S. No. 255 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, the above-named petitioner prefers this memorandum of Civil Revision Petition for the following among other 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 order stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No. 24 of 2017 in O.S.
No. 255 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, pending disposal of the main CRP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
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. The revision petitioner has filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”) before the executing Court. The same was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the application under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC was filed to restore the same on the file of the executing Court. As it was filed with an affidavit of a third party, who is not a party to the claim petition, it was dismissed by the executing Court. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed a fresh petition under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC with her affidavit. The executing Court has returned the said petition with certain objections as to how the petition is maintainable when the same petition under Order 9, Rule 9 CPC was earlier dismissed. The petitioner has re-presented the petition after answering the objections. But again, it was returned without numbering the same. The objection taken by the executing Court is relating to the maintainability of the restoration petition. It can be decided after numbering the petition and hearing the petitioner. But, it cannot be returned without numbering the same.
3. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 returning the petition, is hereby set aside. The executing Court is directed to register the said petition, if it is otherwise in order and hear both the parties in the said petition and then decide the same on merits, according to law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________________ CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. Date: 13.02.2026 ARR
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 113/2026
Date: 13.02.2026
ARR