2026:APHC:16676 APHC010443092025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Tuesday, the Seventeenth day of March Two Thousand and Twenty Six Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 3338 of 2025 Between:

R.C. Suvarna Reddy ...Petitioner and P. Vasudeva Reddy ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioner:

1. G. Sravan Kumar Counsel for the respondent:

1. Bugulu Sreeteja The Court made the following:

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2025 on memo C.F.R.No.3067 of 2025 in I.A.No.451 of 2024 accepting the affidavit of single third party standing surety for an amount of Rs.8,00,000/- towards the suit claim in O.S.No.174 of 2024 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadipatri in view of the order of attachment of the property passed on 15.07.2025 in I.A.No.451 of 2024 in the suit.

2. The revision petitioner contended that the suit was filed for recovery of Rs.12,08,000/- basing on a promissory note for Rs.8,00,000/-, and the trial Court ordered attachment of the property of the defendant before judgment on 15.07.2025 in I.A.No.451 of 2024 directing the respondent / defendant to furnish security for the suit claim of Rs.8,00,000/- (which is the value of the property of the defendant shown by the plaintiff) within 15 days from the date of the order, failing which the share of the property of the respondent in the petition schedule property therein shall be attached, but the trial Court, without providing opportunity to the plaintiff to file objections or considering that the said property is situated outside the jurisdiction of the Court or verifying the document of ownership of the surety, accepted the property of the third party as surety, though it is already subjected to two mortgages as reflected in the encumbrance certificate.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in addition to the grounds noted above, submitted that the defendant had filed the affidavit of the surety along with a memo dated 24.07.2025 with a false endorsement as though the counsel for the plaintiff had refused to receive the notice (of the affidavit and the memo) and the trial Court had accepted the surety on the same day without directing notice and providing an opportunity to file objections.

4. Sri A. Akhilesh, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the counsel for the respondent had tried to contact the respondent through phone, but the respondent had not responded and thus, the counsel has no instructions.

5. A perusal of the record shows that no due opportunity had been given to the revision petitioner before accepting the surety. Even if the endorsement was believed to be true, the Court ought to have given one chance to the plaintiff to file objections. Further, no verification was done by the Court regarding the liabilities on the property offered for security. Therefore, it is a case fit to allow the revision petition.

6. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.07.2025 accepting the third party surety is set aside. The trial Court is directed to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff / petitioner in I.A.No.451 of 2024 in O.S.No.174 of 2024 to raise objections to the property offered for surety and thereafter pass appropriate order on merits. Consequent to setting aside the order dated 24.07.2025, the attachment of the property, if any in force, shall stand restored.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE B.S. BHANUMATHI Dated: 17.03.2026 GRL / NSM The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 3338 of 2025 Dated: 17.03.2026 GRL / NSM