SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10781

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
YELLA VASUDEVA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
YELLA PADMAVATHI – Respondent
CRP 324/2026



##PAGE1##

1

2026:APHC:28611

APHC010039232026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3329]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

TUESDAY,THE TENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 324/2026

Between:

1. Y ELLA VASUDEVA REDDY, S/O. LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED

ABOUT 53 YEARS OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, PRESENTLY

RESIDING AT 7677, BLACK WALUT TRAIL MISSISSAUGA

ONTARIO, CANADA - L5N8A6, REP. BY HIS SPECIAL POWER OF

ATTORNEY HOLDER MUTYALA KRISHNA REDDY, S/O MUTYALA

RAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O 7-1-28/A/1/9, PARK

AVENUE COLONY, SHYAM KARAN ROAD, AMEERPET,

HYDERABAD - 500016.

...PETITIONER

AND

1. Y ELLA PADMAVATHI, W/O. KONDREDY VENKATA REDDY, AGED

56 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO.8-117, MANDIRAM

BAZAAR, KOTHAPETA, KANIGIRI TOWN AND MANDAL,

PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

2. Y ELLA VENKATA SUBBAMMA, W/O. LATE VENKATA REDDY,

AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, AGRICULTURIST, R/O.

KOTHAKUCHIPUDIPALLI, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

3. Y ELLA SRINIVASULU REDDY, S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED

ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, C/O. BHARATH PETROL

BUNK, PAMUR ROAD, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

4. Y ELLA VISWANADHA REDDY, , S/O LATE VENKATA REDDY, AGED

ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O.

##PAGE2##

2

2026:APHC:28611

KOTHAKUCHIPUDIPALLI, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

...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 topleased to set aside Order dated 12-01-2026 passed in I.A. No.31

of 2026 in O.S. No.04 of 2026 on the file of the Principal District Judge,

Ongole, at Parkasam District, and to pass

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 dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the Docket Order

dated 12-01-2026 passed in l.A.No.31 of 2026 in O.S.No.04 of 2026 on the

file of the Principal District Judge, Ongole, at Parkasam District, in the interest

of justice.

IA NO: 2 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 permit Mutyala Krishna Reddy, S/o Mutyala Rami Reddy, aged

about 62 years, R/o 7-1-28/A/1/9, Park Avenue Colony, Shyam Karan Road,

Ameerpet, Hyderabad - 500016, to represent the petitioner in the captioned

CRP and to sign, verify and file all necessary pleadings, affidavits and

documents for the conduct of the case, in the interest of justice, and to pass

IA NO: 3 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 suspend the operation of the Order dated 12-01-2026 passed in

I.A. No.31 of 2026 in O.S. No.04 of 2026 on the file of the Principal District

Judge, Ongole, at Parkasam District, pending disposal of the above Civil

Revision Petition, and to pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. ANUP KOUSHIK KARAVADI

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

##PAGE3##

3

2026:APHC:28611

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 324/2026

ORDER:-

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India challenging the order dated 12.01.2026 passed in I.A.No.31 of 2026 in

O.S.No.4 of 2026 on the file of the Principle District Judge, Ongole.

2. The petitioner herein is defendant No.3, respondent No.1 is plaintiff

and respondent Nos.2 to 4 are defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 in the suit. For the

convenience of the Court, the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the

suit.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the suit is filed for partition by the

plaintiff against the defendants. The plaintiff also filed an application under

Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 r/w 151 of C.P.C., for ad-interim injunction against the

defendants. Wherein, the trial Court without issuing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top