Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRP/516/2020 of PATNALA RAMACHANDRA RAO ALIAS PATNALA RAMAM Vs MARIYANNA RAGHAVENDRA RAO on 4 January 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3560] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 516/2020 Between: 1. PATNALA RAMACHANDRA RAO ALIAS PATNALA
APHC010279712019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 516/2020
Between:
1. PATNALA
RAMACHANDRA
RAO
ALIAS
PATNALA
RAMAM,
S/O.CHITTEYYA, AGED 62 YEARS, BUSINESS, KAKINADA, E.G.DIST.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. MARIYANNA RAGHAVENDRA RAO, S/O.RAJARAO, AGED 47 YEARS, BUSINESS, MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA, E.G.DIST.
2. MARIYANNA GEETHA, W/O.RAGHAVENDRA RAO, AGED 42 YEARS, BUSINESS, MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA, E.G.DIST.
3. BUDIDA RAMANAJI, S/O.PAPARAO, AGED 59 YEARS, BUSINESS, B.P.SILKS, MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA, E.G.DIST.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. T V JAGGI REDDY
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 516/2020
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.
O R D E R:
1. Instant Civil Revision petition has been preferred against an Order dated 26.03.2019 in E.P.No.71 of 2017 in O.S.No.1716 of 2006 passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that:- a suit for permanent injunction was decreed in favour of the petitioner, whereby the Judgment Debtors/Respondents permanently injuncted from making any construction over “CDEFG” portion of plaint schedule property and also restrained Respondents/Defendants from from making any construction in “CDEFG” portion of plaint plan and from interfering with plaintiff’s right to use the “CDEFG” portion of the plaint plan and steps situated therein to reach the 1st floor and verandah. It has been alleged in an application under order XXI, Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code that the 3rd Judgment Debtor has violated the order of injunction intentionally by setting a shutter in “CDEFG” portion of the plaint schedule property. The learned Court below has heard the parties and passed the impugned Order dated 26.03.2019 whereby the application was dismissed. Hence, the instant Civil Revision Petition.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Court below has failed to appreciate the facts and dismissed the petition under Order XXI, Rule 32 of the Civil Procedure Code. He submits that the learned Court below has not taken note of the willful violation of the injunction order by 3rd Judgment Debtor.
4. Heard the learned Counsel, perused the impugned order passed by the learned court below.
5. In paragraph No.9 of the impugned Order, it has been clearly noted by the learned Court below that during cross examination the Decree Holder (P.W.1) has clearly admitted that Municipal Corporation of Kakinada has demolished the front portion of shop rooms of Decree Holder as well as the Judgment Debtors for widening the road, thereby, there is no way to egress of the Decree Holder from the ground-floor into the first floor, except some portion of steps which is remaining. During his cross examination P.W.1 has also admitted that the passage of staircase is still in existence and Decree Holder is using the said staircase to enter into the shop. Therefore, the alleged obstruction caused to the Decree Holder was not done by third Judgment Debtor, whatever obstruction was caused is due to the action of the Kakinada Municipal Corporation. It further appears that P.W.1 during his cross examination has specifically admitted that third Judgment Debtor has not violated the Order of injunction. Alleged violation regarding making shutter over “CDEFG” portion of suit property was not proved by the Petitioner/Decree Holder.
6. After careful perusal of the impugned Order passed by the learned Court below, I find no illegality or impropriety in the Order. The Order is a speaking order, thereby requires no interference. Accordingly, the instant Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, without costs. Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
___________________________ JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA KS Dated:05.01.2026.
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.516 OF 2020
DATED:05.01.2026.
KS