2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 19127
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
REDDY VENKATA RAO – Appellant
Versus
MUDDA RAVIKANTH – Respondent
CRP 1359/2024
##PAGE1##
2026:APHC:19360 APHC010033772024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3332]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1359/2024 Between:
1. R EDDY VENKATA RAO, S/O. KONDAYYA, HINDU, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA,
KARAPA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
2. R EDDY SATYANARAYANA, S/O. TIRUPATHI RAO, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O- D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA,
KARAPA MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. M UDDA RAVIKANTH, S/O. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.
BUSINESS, D.NO. 45-6-26/6, OLD HOSPITAL STREET, JAGANNAICKPUR, KAKINADA.
2. R EDDY TIRUPATHI RAO, (DIED)
3. R EDDY SUNDARA MANIKYAM, W/O TIRUPATHI RAO, AGE
60YEARS, HOUSE WIFE, D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA MANDAT, 4. R EDDY KONDALA RAO, S/O. TIRUPATHI RAO, AGED ABOUT
45 YEARS,. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL.
5. K ORA PARVATHI, W/O. V.V.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 1-37,
##PAGE2##2
2026:APHC:19360
KARAPA, KARAPA MANDAL.
6. R EDDY UMA PARVATHI, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. CULTIVATION, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA,
KARAPA MANDAL.
7. R EDDY SUDHEER, S/O. LATE NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS. STUDENT, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA,
KARAPA MANDAL.
8. R EDDY MANI TEJA, S/O. NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS. STUDENT, R/O. D.NO. 1-37, KARAPA, KARAPA
MANDAL.
...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 to set aside the Judgement and decree dated 16.02.2021 in A.T.A. No. 7 of 2019 on the file of the Court of the Appellate Authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (Principal District Judge), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram In dismissing the appeal and confirming the Order and Decree dated 07-09-2017 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the court of Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil
Judge, Kakinada 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 Interim STAY of all further proceedings in pursuance of the Order and Decree dated 07-09-2017 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 on the file of the court of Special Officer-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada as dated 16.02.2021 In A.T.A. No. 7 of confirmed by order and decree 2019 on the file of the Court of the Appellate Authority under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act (Principal District Judge), East Godavari at Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of above
Revision, in the interest of justice and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. SULTANA SHAIK
##PAGE3##3
2026:APHC:19360
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER
Assailing the correctness and legality of the orders passed by the
Appellate Authority under Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1956, (Principal District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, East Godavari), in A.T.A.No.7 of 2018 under AP Tenancy Act, confirming the orders passed by the Special Officer cum Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, dated 07.09.2017 in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015, the present Civil Revision Petition is
filed.
2. The petitioners herein are the appellant Nos.1 & 5 in A.T.A.No.7 of 2018 and respondents in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015. The respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner in A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 and respondent No.1 in
A.T.A.No.7 of 2019 and respondent No.1 herein.
3. The facts that led to filing of this Civil Revision Petition are that the 1st respondent herein filed Andhra Tenancy Case vide A.T.C.No.2 of 2015 under Section 13 of Andhra Pradesh Tenancy Act, 1980, to order for eviction of respondents therein from the schedule property on the ground of willful default of payments of rents, costs of the petition and for other such reliefs on the ground that the petitioners who are tenants failed to pa