IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AT AMARAVATI *****

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2522 OF 2025 Between:

Kemburu Appalanaidu .. Petitioner And Vavilapalli Ramakrishna and another. .. Respondents.

DATE OF ORDER PRONOUNCED: 16.03.2025 HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

1. Whether Reporters of Local : Yes/No Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments?

2. Whether the copies of judgment : Yes/No may be marked to Law Reports/Journals?

3. Whether Their Ladyship/Lordship : Yes/No wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment?

________________________________________

GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD,J *HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD + CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 2522 OF 2025 % DATE: 16.03.2025 # Between:

Kemburu Appalanaidu .. Petitioner And Vavilapalli Ramakrishna and another. .. Respondents.

! Counsel for the petitioner : Sri Srinivas Ambati ^Counsel for respondents : Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are ex parte.

Gist:

 Head Note:

?CASES REFERRED:

G. Venkata Reddy Vs. B. Venkata Reddy and another (CRP No.1361 of 2010) of High Court of A.P., dated 10.08.2010.

APHC010485732025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI MONDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2522 OF 2025 Between:

1. KEMBURU APPALANAIDU, S/o. Satyam, Aged about 45 years, R/o. Main Street, Mukundapuram Village, Santhakaviti Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

...Petitioner AND

1. VAVILAPALLI RAMAKRISHNA, S/o. late Balaramaswamy Somulu aged about 58 years, Occ. Government Employee R/o. Mandarada Village, Santhakaviti Mandal, Vizianagaram District.

2. Suravarapu Krishna Rao, S/o. Sundararao, aged about 50 years, Occ. Business, R/o. Mandarada Village, Santhakaviti Mandal Vizianagaram District.

...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: SRINIVAS AMBATI Counsel for the Respondents:

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:

Heard Sri Srinivas Ambati, Ld. Counsel for the Revision Petitioner.

2. Notice was ordered to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 by my Ld. Predecessor on 26.09.2025. Notice sent to the Respondent No.1 was served on 11.11.2025 and this fact was noted in the Order of this Court dated 17.11.2025. Despite having received notice on 11.11.2025, the Respondent No.1 had not evinced any interest to enter appearance either in person or through the Counsel till date. Accordingly the Respondent No.1 is set ex parte. Insofar as the Respondent No.2 is concerned, the notice sent to him got returned with an endorsement „Door Locked‟. This fact was also noted in the order dated 17.11.2025.

3. On 02.12.2025, having regard to the facts of this case, this Court has suspended the E.P Proceedings pending before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam.

4. On 12.12.2025, this Court had allowed the I.A.No.02 of 2025 filed by the Petitioner herein and permitted the Petitioner to serve on Respondent No.2 through substituted service. Petitioner has published the Notice on 28.12.2025 in „Eenadu Telugu News Daily‟. Since the said Respondent had failed to enter appearance either in person or through Counsel, despite the Notice being published in the news paper on 09.03.2026, this Court had set the Respondent No.2 ex parte.

5. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed challenging the Docket Order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Rajam dated 21.08.2025 in E.P.No.1/2023 in O.S.No.31/2016. Short Order which is impugned herein is usefully extracted hereunder:

“NEAT COPY OF DOCKET ORDER IN EP.NO.01/2023 IN OS.NO.31 OF 2016 DATED: 21-0802025 NJ STAMPS NJ STAMPS NOT FILED WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF KNOCK DOWN THE SALE. HENCE SALE TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY SALE IS SET-ASIDE AND ISSUE FRESH PUBLICATION IN PRAJA SAKHTI EDITION ON OR BEFORE 08-10-2025. POSTED FOR FURTHER HEARING.

CALL ON 15-10-2025.

SD/-

21-08-2025”

6. The facts in the present case are as under:

(i) The Revision Petitioner is the successful auction purchaser of the subject property. The Respond