Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 18402
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 100/2026
Between:
1. M OGILISETTY VENKATESWARLU, S/O SINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D.NO. 16-2-70, NEAR TYAGARAJASWAMY TEMPLE, KANDUKUR TOWN AND MUNICIPALITY.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. BUSIREDDY NAGESWARA REDDY, S/O SUBBAREDDY, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O 8THWARD, KOTHAPETA, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
2. GARAPATI LAKSHMANA RAO, S/O VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O DIRISAVANCHA VILLAGE, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
3. GONGUNTIA ANIL KUMAR, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/O 4-10(A), BUDULLA STREET, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
4. UNNAM SRINIVASA RAO, S/O RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O WARD KOTHAPETA, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASHAM DISTRICT-523230
5. KALLAGUNTA SUBBARAO, S/O PITCHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O 8-111/A, 8TH WARD, NAKKALATHIPPA, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
6. VELURI GOVINDA REDDY, S/O VENKATASWAMI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, R/O HANUMANTHAPURAM VILLAGE, HM PADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523346
7. THANEERU SUBBULU, W/O HANUMANTHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O 8/119, 8TH WARD, NAKKALATHIPPA, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
8. SHAIK MEERABI, W/O IMAMSAHEB, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 9TH WARD, PERUMALLI STREET, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
9. NERELLA KRISHNA VENI, W/O VENKATA ANANTHA SUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O MOGULLURU VILLAGE, VELIGANDLA MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
10. S HAIK MAHAMAD SHAFI, S/O SHAIK JANI BASHA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O 4/47-2A, 4TH WARD, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRASKASAM DISTRICT-523230
11. S HAIK NAYAMTHULLA, S/O MEERA HUSSAIN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, RLO WARD, BADULLA STREET, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
12. M ULLA KHASIMUNISSA BEGAM, W/O SHAIK CHINAVALL, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O 4TH WARD, BADULLA STREET, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
13. S HAIK AHAMAD BASHA, S/O KASEEMPEERA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O 3RD WARD, MUGGUBAVI STREET, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
14. M UCHELI VIJAYA LAKSHMI, W/O NAGASURI RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O D.N0.9/25A, KOTHAPETA, KANIGIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
15. S HAIK ABDUL KALAM, S/O CHINNA MASTAN SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/O D.NO,8/112, KANIGIRI TOWN AND MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
16. S HAIK REHAMATHJAN, W/O HABEBULLA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O 4THWARD, BADULLA STREET, KANIGIRI TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523230
... RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS
17. G UDAPUREDDY MALAKONDA REDDY, S/O LAKSHMIREDDY, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O CHINTHALAPALEM VILLAGE, SANKAVARAM POST, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523254
18. G UDAPUREDDY VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O LAKSHMIREEDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O CHINTHALAPALEM VILLAGE SANKAVARAM POST, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523254
19. B ERI VENKATESWARA REDDY, S/O PEDA KOLIA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O CHINTHALAPALEM VILLAGE, SANKAVARAM POST, KANIGIRI MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT-523254
...RESPONDENT(S):
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. PONNAM RAVINDRA BABU
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. MD SALEEM
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
TUESDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
_________________________________
VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
17.03.2026
TPS
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
The above named petitioner begs to submit this memorandum of civil revision petition aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2025 passed in I.A.830 of 2023 in O.S.No.17 of 2021, on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukuru, Prakasam District, for the following among the other
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 stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.17 of 2021 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division) Kandukuru, Prakasam District, pending disposal of the revision and to pass
The Court made the following:
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 100/2026
ORDER:-
1. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by the order dated 26.08.2025 passed in I.A.No.830 of 2023 in O.S.No.17 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kandukuru, Prakasam District.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 16.
3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff, the respondent Nos.1 to 16 are proposed parties/defendant Nos.4 to 19, respondent Nos.17 to 19 are defendant Nos.1 to 3 in the suit. For the sake of convenience the parties herein are referred as arrayed in the suit.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that suit is filed for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 04.12.2005. The suit is filed in the year 2021 i.e., after lapse of sixteen years from the date of agreement of sale. While filing the suit the plaintiff impleaded respondent Nos.1 to 3/defendant Nos.1 to 3 who are vendors to the agreement of sale. The claim of the plaintiff in the suit is that the defendant Nos.1 to 3 executed a possessory sale agreement and delivered the possession of the schedule property consisting of total extent of Ac.21.59 cents in Sy.No.379/A1.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that pending the suit, respondent Nos.1 to 16 herein impleaded as party defendant Nos.4 to 19 who are third parties and no way concerned with the relief claimed by the petitioner. The relief claimed by the petitioner is only against defendant Nos.1 to 3 for specific performance of agreement of sale with the petitioner. But, the trial Court erroneously allowed the Interlocutory application impleading the respondent Nos.1 to 16 herein as party defendant Nos.4 to 19. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is contrary and liable to be set aside.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 16/defendant Nos.4 to 19 submits that one of the vendor of the petitioner converted his schedule land into plots and sold the said plots by way of separate registered sale deeds in favour of the defendants 4 to 19 and they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective house plots and some of the plot owners got constructed residential houses. As such, if the suit is decreed without making respondent Nos.1 to 16 herein as party defendant Nos.4 to 19, they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship and their possession would be disturbed and their rights over the property would be defeated. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 16 herein are proper and necessary parties and the trial Court by specifically holding that the parties/impleaded defendant Nos.4 to 19 are proper and necessary parties. Accordingly, the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 to 16 herein was allowed vide order dated 26.08.2025. Moreover, the order of the trial court is well reasoned and in accordance with law, as such the same cannot be interfered.
7. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. It is observed
