GUNDABATHUNI V RAMANA, KRISHNA DIST AND 2 OTHERS v. MADDI RAMA KRISHNA KRISHNA DIST
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 02 Jul 2026
- Bench
- SENIOR CIVIL
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 O. 21 r. 97; s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Revision Petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 4046/2017 Between:
1. GUNDABATHUNI V RAMANA, KRISHNA DIST AND 2 OTHERS, S/O AMMANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE R/O VAKKAPATLAVARIPALEM, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. GUNDABATHUNI SRINIVASA PRASAD, S/O AMMANNA AGED R/O KRISHNA ABOUT VAKKAPATLAVARIPALEM, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL DISTRICT. AGRICULTURE YEARS, OCC: 47
3. KOLLALA VENKATA VENU KAMALA KUMARI, W/O RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. MADDI RAMA KRISHNA KRISHNA DIST ANOTHER, S/O RAGHAVAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS R/O MARRIPALEM, NAGAYALANKA MANDAL KRISHNA DISTRICT.
2. GUNDABATHUNI AMMANNA, S/O RAJU AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, R/O VAKKAPATLAVARIPALEM NAGAYALANKA MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. (RESPONDENT NO.2 HEREIN IS NOT NECESSARY PARTY TO THIS PETITION} 2 ...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 toto set aside the order of rejection to entertain the application filed under Order 21 rule 97 of CPC vide G.L.No. 1309 of 2017 dated 21-06-2017 to consider the objections of the Revision Petitioners who are the third parties, dated 29-06-2017 passed in unnumbered E.A.No. of 2017 in E.A.No. 141 of 2015 in E.P.No. 16 of 2008 in O.S.No. 89 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District by allowing the petition as prayed for in the interest of justice and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 5338 OF 2017 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 suspend the consequential proceedings in E.P.No. 16 of 2008 in O.S.No. 89 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District after rejecting the application of the petitioners in Execution Application such as partial dispossession of the petitioners from their dwelling house of 'A' Schedule Property through Police aid by allowing the petitioners to retain their possessions of pending disposal of the Revision in the interest of justice or to IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRPMP 5339 OF 2017 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 of all further proceedings in E.P.No. 16 of 2008 in O.S.No. 89 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, Krishna District pending disposal of the Revision in the interest of justice or to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. THADIKONDA KOTESHWARA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:4046 of 2017
ORDER:
When the matter is taken up for hearing, the docket order reveals that there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners on the last occasion i.e., on 25.06.2026. Therefore, on 25.06.2026, the matter is directed to be listed on 02.07.2026 under the caption ‘for dismissal’. Even though the matter is posted under the caption ‘for dismissal’, today also there is no representation for the petitioners. This shows that the petitioners are not evincing any interest in prosecuting the case.
Operative part
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non- prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Revision Petition shall stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J
02.07.2026 BSP/TPS Whether the order is : Speaking Yes/No / Reasoned Yes/No Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No 08 4 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:4046/2017
02.07.2026 BSP/TPS
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for non-
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 21 r. 97; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 02 Jul 2026. The bench was SENIOR CIVIL.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.