RAMA HYMAVATHI v. CHALLA RAJAMMA
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151; O. 39 rr. 1, 2
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the court below to dispose of the suit at the earliest not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. No order as to costs.
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 985/2017 Between:
1. RAMA HYMAVATHI, W/O RAMAKRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, LAND OWNER, R/O H. NO. 4-2-75, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, NEAR SRI DEVI RICE MILL, NAWABPET, NELLORE ...PETITIONER
AND
1. CHALLA RAJAMMA, W/O CHENCHU REDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,
2. VEERAPUREDDY PITCHI REDDY, S/O VENKATA NARASA REDDY, (BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KAKUVARIPALLI VILLAGE, ANANTHASAGARM MANDAI, NELLORE 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 toagainst the Decree and Orders dt. 03-112016 in CMA No. 5 of 2016 on the files Senior Civii Judge, Kovur at SPSR Nellore District, which is dismissed and confirmed the Order dt. 24-03-2016 in I.A No 169 of 2015 in O.S No. 81 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 1304 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 operation of Orders dt. 24-03-2016 I.A.No. 169 of 2015 in 2 O.S.No. 81 of 2015 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur, Nellore District pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. HARINATH REDDY SOMA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. M V NARASIMHAM 3 The Court made the following
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that this Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the Judgment and decretal order passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) in C.M.A.No.985 of 2017 connected with I.A.No.169 of 2015 in O.S.No.81 of 2015 filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) Atmakur. Learned counsel further submits that thereafter, no interim protection was granted by this Court in this case. He further submits that the main suit itself bearing O.S.No.81 of 2015 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Atmakur is coming for further evidence of the Defendants.
It transpires from the record that no stay was granted by this Court in this C.R.P. Since the status of main suit bearing O.S.No.81 of 2015 on the file of Civil Judge (Junior Division) itself seems to be at the end of trial, keeping this C.R.P pending would serve no purpose.
Operative part
With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the court below to dispose of the suit at the earliest not later than six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. No order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Date: 18.06.2026 MNR ______________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 4 86 HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.985 OF 2017 Dt: 18.06.2026 Mnr 5
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With these observations, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 227; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. 151; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O. 39 rr. 1, 2.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 18 Jun 2026. The bench was VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.