BOLLA VEERA VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA v. CHALASANI HARI SARVOTHAMA RAO
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J closed.
Judgment
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2263/2017 Between:
#1. BOLLA VEERA VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA, S/O.VENKATA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O.PEDA TUMMIDI, BANTUMILLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
#2. BOLLA VENKATESWARAMMA, W/O. VEERA VENKATA RADHA KRISHNA. AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. R/O.PEDA TUMMIDI, BANTUMILLI MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S)
#1. CHALASANI HYMAVATHI DIED, - AND
#2. CHALASANI HARI SARVOTHAMA RAO, S/O.ANJAIAH, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O.OPP: TTD KALYANAMANDAPAM, RAJENDRA NAGAR, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
#3. CHALASANI RADHIKA, D/O.HARI SARVOTHAMA RAO, AGED R/O.OPP: TTD KALYANAMANDAPAM, ABOUT 52 YEARS, RAJENDRA NAGAR, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
#4. ATLURI LALITHA, W/O.V.K.KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O.HYDERABAD. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT OPP: TTD 2 KALYANAMANDAPAM. RAJENDRA NAGAR. GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.
#5. CH V K KUMAR, S/O. HARI SARVOTHAMA RAO, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/O.OPP: TTD KALYANAMANDAPAM, RAJENDRA NAGAR, GUDIVADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT. ...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 toaggrieved by the Docket Order dated 12-02-2016 in E.A.No.288 of 2015 in E.P.No 23 of 2008 in O.S.No.182 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 2943 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 condone the delay of 311 days in filing the above Revision aggrieved by the order dated 12.02.2016 in EA NO.288 of 2015 in EP NO.23 of 2008 in OS No.182 of 2002 on the file of the court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam, Krishna District and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
#1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):
#1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2263/2017 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Docket Order dated
12.02.2016 in E.A.No.288 of 2015 in E.P.No.23 of 2008 in O.S.No.182 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam.
#2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that pending the Revision Petition, the sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued in favour of the auction purchaser/ D.Hr.. Therefore, the cause in the present Revision petition does not survive for further adjudication and the matter becomes infructuous.
#3. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J closed.
22.06.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable 33 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2263/2017
22.06.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP
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 as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 22 Jun 2026. The bench was ADDITIONAL 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.