Andhra Pradesh High Court – Amravati
Badi Ramakrishnaiah vs Poojari Venkatamuni on 20 July, 2026
Date of reserved for orders : 13.07.2026
Date of pronouncement : 20.07.2026
Date of uploading : 22.07.2026
APHC010636362025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE 20th DAY OF JULY 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3454/2025
Between:
1. BADI RAMAKRISHNAIAH,, S/O. BADI NARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 52
YEARS, R/O. PUDIPATIA VILLAGE AND POST, TIRUPATI (RURAL)
MANDAL, CHITTOOR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
AND
1. POOJARI VENKATAMUNI, S/o. Poojari Nagaiah, aged about 50 years,
R/o. Cherlopalli village, Kammapalli Post, Ramachandra Puram
Mandal, Chittoor District
...RESPONDENT
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 topleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the
Order dated 22.08.2025 passed in I.A. No.821 of 2016 in I.A. No.922 of 2011
in O.S No. 454 of 2008 on the file of the Hon'ble Additional Civil Judge
(Senior Division) Tirupati
Page 2 of 6
IA NO: 1 OF 2025
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 the further proceedings pertaining to O.S No. 454 of 2008
on the file of the Hon'bie Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division] Tirupati
pending disposal of the above CRP
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KANDERI CHETHAN
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri K.Chetan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The plaintiff in the suit filed the above revision against the order dated
22.08.2025 in I.A.No.821 of 2016 in I.A.No.922 of 2011 in O.S.No.454 of 2008
on the file of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tirupati.
3. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant seeking specific
performance of the agreement of sale dated 11.02.2008.
4. a) The defendant, having entered an appearance, failed to file a written
statement and hence, the suit was decreed ex parte on 27.02.2009. The
defendant filed I.A.No.922 of 2011 under Order XI Rule 13 of CPC and
I.A.No.730 of 2009 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, to condone the delay
of 145 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The appellate
Page 3 of 6
Court allowed I.A.No.730 of 2009 on 19.08.2011 on the condition that the
defendant shall pay Rs.150/- to the plaintiff on or before 06.09.2011. The
defendant paid the costs. Thereafter, I.A.No.922 of 2011 filed under Order IX
Rule 13 CPC, was allowed on 11.12.2011, conditionally, to deposit the suit
costs within 15 days, failing which the petition stands dismissed, and the suit
was posted to 03.01.2012. The defendant was bedridden due to neurology
problem and could not meet his advocate to deposit the suit costs within the
time. Consequently, I.A.No.922 of 2011 was dismissed.
b) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.34 of 2013, and the defendant
received notice of it and filed vakalat. Later, the defendant filed I.A.No.161 of
2015 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 1122 days
in filing the petition to set aside the order in I.A.No.922 of 2009. The
I.A.No.161 of 2015 was allowed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.4842 of 2016 and the same was dismissed by the High
Court, confirming the order in I.A.No.161 of 2015. Subsequently, I.A.No.821 of
2016 was numbered, filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 9 of CPC to
set aside the dismissal order dated 03.01.2022 in I.A.No.922 of 2011.
5. The trial Court, by order dated 22.08.2025, allowed I.A.No.821 of 2016.
Aggrieved by the same, the above revision is filed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the interregnum,
the plaintiff filed I.A.No.39 of 2022 under Section 151 of CPC to reopen
I.A.No.821 of 2016 for further hearing, contending that the medical certificate
produced by the defendant is fake. The said I.A. was ordered on 18.09.2024,
and thereafter the trial Court allowed the I.A.No.821 of 2016 on 22.08.2025.
The trial Court did not consider the medical certificate produced by the
defendant.
Page 4 of 6
7. As seen from the sequence of events narrated supra, I.A.No.922 of
2011, filed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, was allowed conditionally on
payment of suit costs. Since the costs were not deposited, the conditions
came into force; as a result, I.A. was dismissed on 03.01.2022. I.A.No.161 of
2015 filed by the petitioner under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone
the delay of 1122 days in filing the petition, to set aside the default order dated
03.01.2022, was allowed, and eventually the same was confirmed in
C.R.P.No.4842 of 2016. The reasons assigned in the petition filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act and the petition filed under Order IX Rule 9 of
CPC are the same.
8. No doubt, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.39 of 2022 to reopen I.A.No.861 of
2016. However, since the reasons assigned in I.A.No.161 of 2015 and
I.A.No.821 of 2016 are the same and further, the order in I.A.No.161 of 2015
was confirmed in C.R.P.No.4842 of 2016, no separate enquiry in I.A.No.821 of
2016 is needed. Indeed, I.A.No.821 of 2016 was allowed in payment of costs
of Rs.5,000/- to the plaintiff.
9. As noted supra, the reasons assigned to condone the delay and the
application to set aside the order are the same. Once the reasons in the
petition to condone the delay are accepted, the other application is
consequential. No separate enquiry is required. However, if the reasons in the
two I.A.s are different, an independent enquiry in both I.A.s is necessary.
Once the trial court exercised its jurisdiction judiciously, and such exercise
smacks of no illegality, while exercising the jurisdiction under Art 227, this
Court normally loathe to interfere. The jurisdiction of this Court under Article
227 of the Constitution of India is no longer res integra.
Page 5 of 6
10. In Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. and Another Vs.
B.Gurappa Naidu and Others1, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the
scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and summarised the
principles as follows:
“35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters, is as follows:
a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised
unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction,
not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c)
an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or
tribunals.
b) It is also well settled that the High Court while acting under this Article
cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own
judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error,
which is not apparent on the face of the record.
c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a
court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts
upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory
jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw
when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court
is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of
the inferior court or tribunal.”
11. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the judgments in Shalini
Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil2; Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass
Estate (P) Ltd.3, and Garment Craft Vs. Prakash Chand Goel4 in the recent
judgment.
1
2026 SCC OnLine SC 745
2
(2010) 8 SCC 329
3
(2001) 8 SCC 97
4
(2022) 4 SCC 181
Page 6 of 6
12. Keeping in view the expressions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and given
the discussion supra, this Court does not find any perversity or illegality in the
orders passed by the trial Court warranting interference of this Court, while
exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There
are no merits in the revision, and hence, it is liable to be dismissed. Since the
suit is of the year 2008, the learned trial court shall endeavour to expedite the
disposal of the suit by adhering to the procedure and the law.
13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
___________________________
JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
PVD
Whether the order is :
Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No
Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No
