(Prayer: 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 topleased to set aside the order dated 09.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.448/2023 in A.S.No.25/2023 on the fileof the XAdditional District and Sessions Judge, Anakapalli and allow the application filed by the petitioners and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

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 pleased to grant an interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P. No. 77/2016 in O.S.No. 64/ 2012 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Court, Anakapalle, pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass

IA NO: 2 OF 2025

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 may be pleased to extend the interim orders dated 4.4.2025, passed in C.R.P. No. 800 2025 and further extended on 2.5.2025, 4.4.2025, 5.2.2025, 4.7.2025, 18.7.2025, 22.8.2025,19.9.2025 pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition and pass

IA NO: 3 OF 2025

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 May be pleased to permit us to take out notices to the Respondents No.2 and 3 by way of substituted service in a Local Newspaper Publication in Eenadu District Edition, Visakahapatnam District, in CRP 800 of 2025 and pass)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the legality and correctness of the orders dated 09.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.448 of 2023 in A.S.No.25/2023 by the learned X Additional District & Sessions Judge, Anakapalle `

2. The Revisionists are the petitioners/ appellants whereas the respondents are the respondents/ respondents in I.A.No.448 of 2023 in A.S.No.25/2023.

3. The facts that led to filing of the Civil Revision Petition, in brief, are that:

                  (i) Assailing the orders dated 17.03.2023 passed in the Claim petition vide E.A.No.17 of 2018 in E.P.No.77 of 2016 in O.S.No.64 of 2012 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalle, the claim petitioners preferred Appeal suit vide A.S.No.25 of 2023. Therein they filed petition vide I.A.No.448 of 2023 under order-XLI, Rule-5, read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure for grant of stay of operation of the entire proceedings in E.P.No.77 of 2016 in O.S.No.64 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli.

                  (ii) The learned appellate Judge while dealing with the said petition file for grant of stay, dismissed the petition holding that as against the orders passed in claim petitions filed under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC, revision only lies but not appeal.

                  (iii) The said dismissal order is assailed in this Civil Revision Petition.

4. Heard Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners. Despite service of notice, none appeared for the respondents.

5. Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioners, while reiterating the grounds of Civil Revision Petition would contend that when a claim petition has been adjudicated upon, the remedy is only by way of appeal and a revision under Section 115 CPC is not maintainable, however, the learned Appellate Judge upon misconception dismissed the petition erroneously holding that revision has to be filed, but not appeal, against the orders passed in a claim petition. He would further contend that the impugned order is perverse and the same deserves dismissal. Accordingly, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition.

                  In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on the decisions in Naga Laxmi and others vs. Bichappa and others (2002(1) Andhra Weekly Reporter page 105) and Gurujala Hanumantha Reddy vs. Kadabatina Venkateswarlu and others(Orders dated 21.12.2021 passed in CRP Nos.5889/2017 & 483/2019.).

6. Perused the contents of the petition and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners.

7. The petitioners preferred appeal vide A.S.No.25 of 2023 assailing the orders passed in claim petition vide E.A.No.17 of 2018 in E.P.No.77 of 2016 in O.S.No.64 of 2012 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Anakapalle. The said Claim petition was filed under Order-XXI, Rule-58 of Code of Civil Procedure.

8. In the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Gurujala Hanumantha Reddy (supra 2), a Coordinate Bench of this Court while placing reliance on the decision in Naga Laxmi and others (supra 1), held that order passed under Order XXI, Rule 58 CPC is amenable to regular appeal under XLI CPC, as such a Civil Revision Petition would not be maintainable against that order.

9. In Gurram Seetharam Reddy vs. Gunti Yashoda(2004 Supreme (AP) 986), a Full Bench of this Court held thus:

                  “35. When Section 96 C.P.C. specifically provides for appeals against decrees, and sub-rule (4) of Rule 58 of Order 21 directs that the order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof shall have the force of a decree, there hardly exists any basis to deny such characteristics to such an order. An interpretation to the contrary would have the effect of setting at naught, the intention of the Parliament in attributing characteristics of a decree to an order. In view of a clear mandate under sub-rule (4) of Rule 58, an order passed under sub-rule (3) thereof, partakes a character of a decree for all practical purposes, more so, in the context of availing the remedy of appeal. Same reasoning holds good for the orders passed under Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 C.P.C. Hence, there does not exist any justification to treat the same as different, in any way from decrees, at least in the context of deciding the forum and provision for appeal. The question as to what nomenclature is to be given to the appeals, needs to be dealt with by the High Court or the District Courts, on administrative side. Hence, we are of the view that the judgment of this Court in Nookaraju's case (1 supra) does not lay the correct proposition of law. Once it is held that orders passed under Rule 58(3) and Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 C.P.C., are appealable under Section 96 C.P.C., it is axiomatic that a second appeal is maintainable against the order passed in such appeals. Though this question is not referred to this Full Bench, it is dealt with, to put an end to the controversy and uncertainty.”

10. In view of the observations made supra, it is clear that orders passed under Rule 58 of Order 21 CPC are appealable under Section 96 CPC, but not revisable as held by the learned appellate Judge. Therefore, the observations made by the learned appellate Judge to that extent are untenable, unsustainable and are accordingly set aside.

11. The impugned orders came to be passed not on merits of the petition filed under Order XLI, Rule-5 of CPC but on the faulty conclusion arrived at by the learned appellate Judge that appeal is not maintainable, the petition covered under the impugned orders has to be remitted back for consideration afresh on merits.

12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed in part, setting aside the order dated 09.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.448 off 2023 in A.S.No.25 of 2023 by the learned X Additional District Judge, Anakapalli. The petition vide I.A.No.448 of 2023 in A.S.No.25 of 2023 shall stand restored to file. The learned Appellate Judge shall dispose of the petition on merits. There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.