Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17145

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
Sanaka Murali – Appellant
Versus
Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2001/2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Akula Vamsi Krishna
For the Respondents: Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, T Raghu Prasad

The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is reserved for exceptional circumstances and should not be exercised when alternative statutory remedies exist; it cannot act as an appellate court to correct errors or substitute its view for that of subordinate tribunals.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 227 - Supervisory jurisdiction - Scope - Exercise of jurisdiction - High Court cannot act as a court of appeal or substitute its view for that of the court/tribunal below - Jurisdictional limits - Alternative remedy - Where specific statutory remedy is available under CPC, such as Order VII Rule 11, the power under Art. 227 should not be exercised - Proper recourse for a third party having grievance is to seek impleadment or move an appropriate application before the trial court. (Paras 11, 13, 15)

(B) Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 - Repeal Act of 2022 - Application of Repeal - Savings clause - Evaluation of whether tenancy relationship existed prior to repeal - Jurisdiction of trial court to adjudicate facts is not to be pre-empted by High Court under Art. 227. (Paras 17, 19)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner filed a Civil Revision Petition questioning the numbering of an A.T.C. (Tenancy case) and challenging the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, claiming the relevant Tenancy Act had been repealed in 2022. The Petitioner was not a party to the original proceeding between a tenant and a landlord. Respondents argued the Petition was not maintainable, asserting that a third party should seek impleadment and that the High Court should not bypass statutory processes under Art. 227.

Findings of Court:
The Court dismissed the Revision Petition, holding that it cannot act as a court of appeal or interfere under Art. 227 when alternative statutory remedies exist. The court observed that the existence of the tenancy relationship relative to the date of repeal was a matter for the trial court to determine.

Issues: Whether the High Court should exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 to set aside proceedings in a lower tribunal based on an alleged lack of jurisdiction due to the repeal of an Act, and whether a third party should be allowed to bypass statutory remedies.

Ratio Decidendi: High Court's supervisory power is to be used sparingly and not in place of alternative statutory remedies (like Order VII Rule 11 CPC). Judicial discipline requires parties to approach the competent tribunal first for impleadment or adjudication of facts.

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. description of the dispute regarding jurisdiction and tenancy after act repeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. arguments regarding maintainability of the petition and locus standi of a third party. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 11)
3. principles of supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 and availability of alternative remedies. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
4. application of law on repeal and the need for factual adjudication by the trial court. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

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 to set-aside the Order, dt.15.03.2024, passed in I.A.No.101 of 2024 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Special Officer of Tenancy Tribunal-Cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, at Avanigadda, Krishna District and to pass appropriate orders and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2024

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 to grant leave to the petitioner to file the present CRP against the Injunction

IA NO: 2 OF 2024

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 to Stay all further proceedings in A.T.C.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Special Officer of Tenancy Tribunal-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court, at Avanigadda, Krishna District, pending disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, and pass

The Court made the following order:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, questioning the very numbering of A.T.C.No.2 of 2024 on the file of the Court of the Special Officer of Tenancy Tribunal-cum-Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court at Avanigadda, Krishna District.

2. The facts that led to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition are that:

The petitioner is a third party. Respondent No.1 is the tenant and respondent No.2 is the landlord in A.T.C No.2 of 2024. Respondent No.1-tenant filed the said A.T.C, under Section 16 of the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act seeking declaration that he is the cultivating tenant of petition schedule property and for permanent injunction. Along with the said petition, he also filed I.A.No.101 of 2024 seeking temporary injunction restraining the respondent/landlord, his men and followers from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the petition schedule property by the petitioner/tenant until disposal of the main A.T.C. The Tribunal ordered notice and directed the tenant to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure. At that stage, the petitioner, claiming to have certain rights over the property, filed the present Civil Revision Petition solely on the ground that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the A.T.C, as Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 was repealed in the year 2022 by the Andhra Pradesh State Legislature vide Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Repeal Act, 2022 (Act No.21 of 2022).

3. Heard Sri Akula Vamsi Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, learned counsel for respondent No.1-tenant and Sri T.Raghu Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2-landlord.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of revision, contended that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain any cases under the Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956 , in such circumstances, this Court has to vitiate all the proceedings arising out of A.T.C No.2 of 2024 in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. He further contended that the Tribunal erroneously entertained the petition filed by respondent No.1, numbered it as A.T.C.No.2 of 2024 under the A.P Tenancy Act and granted temporary injunction erroneously under the repealed Act. Hence, prayed t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 17145

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESHRavi Cheemalapati, JSanaka Murali – AppellantVersusUddangi Ramanjaneyulu – RespondentCIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2001/2024

The High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is reserved for exceptional circumstances and should not be exercised when alternative statutory remedies exist; it cannot act as an appellate court to correct errors or substitute its view for that of subordinate tribunals.

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Ravi Cheemalapati, J
Sanaka Murali – Appellant
Versus
Uddangi Ramanjaneyulu – Respondent
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2001/2024