PITHAPURAM MAHARANI CHINNAMAMBA DEVI v. SMT KADA SAROJINI DEVI
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 227
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 s. 151
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
Judgment
Cause title
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2432/2017 Between:
1. PITHAPURAM MAHARANI CHINNAMAMBA DEVI LADIES RECREATION CLUB,, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT, D.NO. 24-5-12, R.P. ROAD, KAKINADA
2. SMT. BODDU SATYAVATHI,, PRESIDENT, PITHAPURAM MAHARANI CHINNAMAMBA DEVI LADIES RECREATION CLUB, D.NO. 24-5-12, R.P. ROAD, KAKINADA ...PETITIONER(S)
AND
1. SMT KADA SAROJINI DEVI, W/O. VENKATARAMANA MURTHY, HINDU, AGED 49 YEARS, D.NO. 13-1-40, VASAVI TOWERS, FLAT NO. 40, M & M BACK SIDE, MAIN ROAD, KAKINADA
2. SMT NEMANI LAKSHMI, SECRETARY, PITHAPURAM MAHARANI CHINNAMAMBA DEVI LADIES RECREATION CLUB, D.NO. 24-5-12, R.P. ROAD, KAKINADA ...RESPONDENT(S)
: 2 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 to allow the C.R.P. by setting aside the Judgment and Decree passed by the District Judge, Rajamahendravaram dated 2-2-2017 with costs, and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 3174 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 all further proceedings in pursuance of the Judgment and Decree passed in O.P.No. 568/2015 dated 02.02.2017 on the file of the District Judge, Rajamahendravaram, pending disposal of main CRP and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRPMP 6577 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 in CRP vacate No.2432/2017 dated 09.08.2017 and dismiss the above CRP along with miscellaneous petition in CRPMP No.3174/2017 itnerim orders passed Counsel for the Petitioner(S):
1. A ANASUYA Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. VEERABHADRA RAO KOPPISETTI The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2432/2017
ORDER:
The Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 02.02.2017 passed in O.P.No.568 of 2017 on the file of the District Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
No representation on behalf of the petitioner on the last three occasions i.e., on 03.01.2018, 17.06.2026 and 19.06.2026. On 19.06.2026 this Court posted the matter to today under the caption ‘For Dismissal”. Even though the matter is posted under the caption ‘For Dismissal’, today also there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
It is observed that the present civil revision petition is filed against the order dated 02.02.2017 passed in O.P.No.568 of 2017. After filing of the present revision petition, no interim orders were granted by this Court. In the absence of any interim orders by this Court, the trial Court might have been implemented the orders dated 02.02.2017. Hence, no cause survives for further adjudication in the present revision petition and the matter becomes infructuous.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. 4 As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
22.06.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP Whether the order is: Speaking Reasoned Reportable Non-reportable ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 5 46 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:2432/2017
22.06.2026 TTPPSS//BBSSPP
Questions this judgment answers
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 DECREE, DISTRICT.
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.