High Court · 2025

4. Kutumbaka Sai Yagnasri, D/o late Kutumbaka Naveen Kumar. Age: I years, Occ: student. R/o khammam city anddistrid.

5. Kutumbaka Sohith, S/o late Kuturnbaka Naveen Kumar, aged 5 years. Occ: student, R/o khammam city and district. (respondent Nos. 4 & 5 beirg minors are represented by their moth€r and natural guardiafl Samireni@ Kutumbaka Swapna, the respondent No.3 herein) (notice to rcspondent Nc. 3to 5 are not required) ...Respondentsrjudgment debtors lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under section .151 cpc praying that in the circumsltances stated In the.affidavir fire(J rn support of tne peiitro'n, fh; i]rh Court may be pteased lo stay a, further proceedrnos in EA No. s ot ziii in iE'No. za of 2():21 in os No 142 of 2018 on the, frte of"the Court of erincip"f Oistfct .ludge, Kharnmam, ti, the disposal of the marn ovil revision petition. lA NO: 1 oF 202s Petition under seclion .151 .cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affrdavil fitec rn support ot ttre peiitio'n, ih" ilrh Court may l)e pteased to direct th€ respond€,nt No 1 and Z I O.Hr". ,oi io-ai.'[o'"""", the petrtioners from the EP schedure prooerlv in.Ep No zq of o'zr' *'ol-*o.raz o! 2018 0n the fire of rhe courr of p.ncipat Disrrict J;dg;,];;;;;,'pending disposat of rhe presenl reviston peltlron. Counsel for the petitioners: Mr. G. Ravi Chandrasekhar Counsel for the Re:;pondent No.2: Sri Vinod Ketepally The Court made th€, following: ORDER THE TIONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SRED SUDHA CIYIL REVI SION PETITION No.31O2 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against t]'e Order dated 09.Cl6.2023 in E.A.No.9 of 2023 in E'P'No 24 of 2O'21 tn O.S.No.142 of 2018, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Khammam.

2. The order of the trial Court, against which the present revision petition is filed, reads as follows: "Though the petition under Order 2 I ntle 52 and 58 read uith Section 151 Crc, tle petitioners seelt declaration tlnt heA ore ttauing right ouer open srte ol 4 acres 3 /z guntas in S.No-3O/ 2 of Mathkepally Reuenue Viltage, uhichis item No.7 of the E.P property' The petitioners plea.ded tllal theA are hautng shore in *E petition propertg and tle suit for parlition ond possession oIEr tfe petition propertA in O S'No 1)25 of 2022 is penhtg befiueen tllem and Judgment deblor Nos..l to 3, on the file of tle Court oI Spl'Mobile JCJ' Khammom. Decree holders fded aunter stating that the petitioners fited the said. trrtition, suit and tlY present petition with false allqotiotts. No euidene is ddued bg the petitioners' The counsel for tle petitiorers' b present. Tte @unsel Jor the decree hold-ers lws submitted that item No'l of the E'P propertq, uhich is tlle petitbn proPertA tuas sold in the oryn Court auction on 2O.O3.2O23 in E'P'No'26 of 2o2l on the fte of tle Court of M ADJ, Ktnmmam' On the representotion oJ the @unsel for the d'ecree holders thtz !; I I i :l .i ;l 1 ! i l I i i I : I i t t 2 EP t;_dr'smrssed as respects ttle petition property and the attachment is raised. In the it i" u.nne,cessary to keep this petition pending and. tfuirefore the petition is dismrssed as unnecessary.. "ir*^"ionJ.,

3. karned Counscl for the petitioners herein mainly contendecl rhat rhc Order of the trial Court is not a speaking Order. He also contendcd that E.A was. disposed of by the trial Court wirhour <.onclucring enquiry and also without gjving an opportuni':y ro rhc peririoners. Moreover, o.s.No.1i25 0f 2022 is pending beLrvcen rhc pcririoners and J.Drs.1 to 3. Therefore, requested the CoLlrt ro set aside the Order of the trial Ccurt.

4. No doubr, E A No.9 of 2023 was filed by petitioners herein under Order 2 I rulc .52 and 5g R/w.151 CpC, seeki:ng for declaration i-h:lr thev are having right over the open site of 4 acres 3 72 glrnras in S.No.3O/2 of Mathkepally Revenue Village, and the trial Cor:rr observed that the said property was sold in the open CoLrrr aucrion on 2O.O3.2O23 in E.p.No.26 of 2O21, as such E.P was dismissed and,attachrnent was raised. Therefore, tfiere is rro poinr in keeping the petition pending and accordingly dismrssed rhe petit ion. J

5. The argument of the petitioners' Counsel that no speaking Order was pass€d cannot be accepted. In fact, it is not required in view of the auction of the suit schedutre prop€rty. Regarding . pending of O.S.No. I 125 oi 2O2i, was also brought to the notice of the trial Court, but the trial Court observed tlat no evidence was adduced by the petitioners and as the Counsel for the decrcc holders has represented that item No.l of the suit schedule property was already sold in the open auction, it was -. dismissed by the trial Court. Theref,ore, this Court finds no ille gality or infirmity in the Order of the trial Cou'rt.

6. ln the result, the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed ionfirming the Order of the trial Court dated

09.06.2023 passed in E.A.No.9 of 2023 in E.P.No.24 of 2O2l in O.S.No. la2 of 2018. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed / //TRUE COPY" Sd,- V. KAVITHA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR sEcfloNofiflcER To,

1. The Princhlal Districl Judge, Khammam. 2. one CC to Mr. G Ravi Chandrasekhar, Advoiate IOPUCI 3. One CC to Sra Vinod Ketepally, Advocate [@UC] 4. Two CD CoPies Kanr/gh tP HIGH COURT DATED:21 10112025 I i ,l I I I I ORDER CRP.No.3102. of 2024 F, !i ll E STA rGr 0 i t'lAB 2025 (| I * t )1'-sp^Tc * DISMISSING OF THE CIVIL REVTSION PETJTION ?+ lL/ )-\ 6c4ir-';,