Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/3253/2025 of SMT PURRE VIJYA KALAVATHI Vs MEKATHOTI RAVI KUMAR on 29 January 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION Between: 1. SMT PURRE VIJYA KALAVATHI, W/O VENKATA RAMANA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O DOOR NO. 20 NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN 520003. 1.
APHC010619882025
IN TH
FRIDAY,
TWO
THE HONOURABLE SR
CIVIL R
Between:
1. SMT PURRE VIJY
ABOUT 48 YEARS
NAGAR, VIJAYAWA
520003.
1. MEKATHOTI RAVI
YEARS,
R/O
D
VIJAYAWADA, NTR
2. MEKATHOTI RAJU
YEARS,
R/O
D
VIJAYAWADA, KR
520003
Petition under Articl
circumstances stated in
pleased to allow the CRP
in I.A. No.191 of 2025 in
Additional District Judge,
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
Petition under Secti
in the affidavit filed in sup
E HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRAD
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY
O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
RI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVEND
REVISION PETITION NO: 3253/2025
YA KALAVATHI, W/O VENKATA RA
S, R/O DOOR NO. 20-04-85A, BAS
ADA, NTR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PR
AND
KUMAR, S/O LATE GEORGE, AG
D.NO.20-04-115,
BASAVA
TARA
R DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH, P
U KUMAR, S/O LATE GEORGE, AG
D.NO.20-04-115,
BASAVA
TARA
RISHNA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRA
...RES
le 227 of the Constitution of India, pra the grounds filed herein, the High P by setting aside the Order dated 13.
n A.S. No.161 of 2025 on the file of th
Vijayawada and pass
on 151 CPC praying that in the circum
pport of the petition, the High Court ma DESH
Y
DRANATH ROY
AMANA, AGED
SAVA TARAKA
RADESH, PIN -
...PETITIONER
ED ABOUT 39
AKA
NAGAR,
PIN - 520003.
GED ABOUT 37
AKA
NAGAR,
ADESH, PIN -
SPONDENT(S):
aying that in the
Court may be
10.2025 passed
he of Court of V
mstances stated
ay be pleased to
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.3253 of 2025
grant stay of all further proceedings dated 21-07-2025 in O.S.No.96 of 2018
on the file of III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Vijayawada, pending disposal of the CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.CH S S V PRASAD
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.Y.S.VIJAYA PRATAP
CMR,J
C.R.P.No.3253 of 2025
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:
Aggrieved by the order dated 13.10.2025 passed in I.A.No.191 of 2025 in A.S.No.161 of 2025, whereby, the petition filed under Order 41 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure for grant of stay of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.96 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada was dismissed, the present revision petition is preferred by the petitioner.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Inspite of granting several adjournments, the respondents are not turning up for hearing in this revision petition. Therefore, the revision petition is being disposed of, on merits, as per the material available on record, after hearing the petitioner.
3. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.96 of 2018 on the file of the III Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction against her. After trial, the suit was decreed against her. Aggrieved thereby, she has preferred an appeal to the Court of V Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Along with the appeal, she has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 5 of Code of Civil Procedure seeking stay of execution of the decree and the judgment of the trial Court. The trial Court dismissed the said petition by the impugned order. The revision petitioner, who is the defendant in the suit, categorically admits at the time of hearing the revision petition that she is not in possession of the suit schedule property. However, her grievance is only relating to the pathway which is adjacent to her residential house. Therefore, when she is not in possession of the suit schedule property, and when the plaintiffs were found to be in possession of the suit schedule property, prima facie, this Court finds no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree of the trial Court. Therefore, the Appellate Court rightly dismissed the stay petition filed by her.
CMR,J C.R.P.No.3253 of 2025
4. However, as it is pleaded that by virtue of that injunction decree, the plaintiffs in the suit are interfering with the pathway which is adjacent to the residential house of the petitioner/defendant, this Court is of the considered view that a direction is required to be given to the Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal as early as possible, expeditiously.
5. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, confirming the order of the first appellate Court. However, the first appellate Court shall make an endeavor to dispose of the appeal, on merits, after hearing both the parties, expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY
Date: 30.01.2026 MDP