Date of reserved for orders : 21.07.2026

Date of pronouncement : 25.08.2026

Date of uploading : .08.2026

APHC010143932025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3331]

TUESDAY, THE 25

th

DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 778/2025

Between:

1. BULLE LAKSHMANNA, S/O. B. NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74

YEARS, R/O. D.NO.16-281, UMA NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU

TOWN, ANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, A. P.

2. BULLE NARAPPA,, S/O. B. NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 67

YEARS, R/O. D.NO.368, 4TH CROSS, SARADA NAGAR,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P.

3. BULLE LAKSHMI DEVI,, W/O. VENKATESU, AGED ABOUT 62

YEARS, R/O. SUDHAKUNTAPALLI VILLAGE, KUNTIMADHI

MANDAL, SRI SATYA SAI DISTRICT, A.P.

4. BULLE KANTHAMMA,, W/O. VEERA NARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 59

YEARS, R/O. LOLURU VILLAGE, GARLADINNE MANDAL

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT, A.P.

...PETITIONER(S)

AND

Page 2 of 16

1. BULLE NARAMMA JAMPALA NARAMMA, D/O. BULLE

SATYANARANA, W/O. JAMPA LA CHINNA KONDANNA AGED

ABOUT 71 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.2 -44, PASULURU VILLAGE,

BUKKARAYASAMUDRAM MANDAL ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT,

A.P.

2. BULLE CHINNA RAMUDU, S/O. BULLE LAKSHMANNA, AGED

ABOUT 76 YEARS, R/O. UPPARAPALLI VILLAGE,

ANANTHAPURAMU DISTRICT.

3. BULLE RAMUDU, S/O. PEDDA RAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

R/O. D.NO.368, 4TH CROSS, SARADA NAGAR, ANANTHAPURAMU

DISTRICT (R 2 AND 3 ARE NOT NECESSARY PARTIES)

...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 to set aside the Impugned Order dated 05.02.2025 passed in I.A. No.

1090 of 2024 in O.S.No.95 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional District

Judge, Ananthapuramu in di smissing the Application filed by the

Petitioners/Defendant Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 herein under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code

of Civil Procedure 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 to

stay all further proceedings in O.S.No.95 of 2023 on the file of the I Additional

District Judge, Ananthapuramu, during the pendency of the above Civil

Revision Petition and pass

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

1. CKR ASSOCIATES

Page 3 of 16

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. M RAVINDRA

The Court made the following ORDER:

Defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 in the suit filed the above revision against the

order, dated 05.02.2025 in I.A.No.1090 of 2024 in O.S.No.95 of 2023 on the file

of the learned I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this Civil Revision Petition

(C.R.P.) shall be referred to as per their status in the suit O.S.No.95 of 2023.

3. Respondent No.1, being the plaintiff, filed suit O.S.No.95 of 2023 for

declaration of title over the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction

restraining the defendants, their men, agents and servants from interfering with

the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule

property.

4. As seen from the averments set out in the plaint, the father of the plaintiff

by name Bulle Satyanarayana and his brother Bulle Narayanappa are brothers.

After the death of the plaintiff‟s father, the plaintiff‟s mother Kondamma and the

plaintiff are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule

property. The other co-owners executed a registered relinquishment deed,

dated 12.06.1969. Thereby the plaintiff and her mother became the absolute

owners of land admeasuring Ac.1-26 cents in survey No.176-5, Anantapuramu.

The original relinquishment deed was with Narayanappa, father of defendants 1

and 2. The mother of the plaintiff, Kondamma, executed a registered gift deed in

favour of the plaintiff vide document No.15853 of 2007 dated 06.12.2007 in

Page 4 of 16

respect of the part of the schedule property. The plaintiff accepted the gift, and it

was acted upon.

(ii) The defendants and some others tried to disturb the possession, and

hence, the plaintiff along with her mother filed suit O.S.No.422 of 1995 on the

file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, for permanent

injunction. The said suit was dismissed, against which the plaintiffs in the suit

filed A.S.No.1 of 2003 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge,

Anantapuramu. The said appeal was dismissed confirming the decree in

O.S.No.422 of 1995. Aggrieved by the judgment in A.S.No.1 of 2003, the

plaintiff filed S.A.No.335 of 2005 before the High Court, and the same was

dismissed recording a finding about the cloud on the title of the plaintiffs therein.

Thereafter, the mother died. Hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit seeking

declaration of title.

5. Defendant No.2 filed a written statement denying the plaintiff‟s case.

6. Pending the suit, defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 filed I.A.No.1090 of 2024 in

O.S.No.95 of 2023 under Order VII Rule 11 C.P.C. to reject the plaint.

7. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended, inter alia,

that the land admeasuring Ac.1-26 cents in Survey No.176-5, Ananthapuramu is

joint property of the plaintiff‟s father, B. Satayanarayana and his brothers by

name Bulle Narayanappa, Lakshmanna, Peddaiah and Ramappa. Bulle

Lakshmaiah, Bulle Peddaiah, Bulle Narayanappa, Bulle Ramappa and Bulle

Satyanarayana died. Bulle Lakshmanna died, leaving behind him only a son by

name Bulle Chinna Ramappa. Said Chinna Ramappa had daughters by names

Pedda Ujjinamma, Renukamma, Chinna Ujjinamma, Nagalakshmi and

Obulamma and a son Vannurappa. B ulle Peddaiah had no issues. Bulle

Page 5 of 16

Narayanappa had sons by names Bulle Lakshmanna, Nariganna, Narappa and

daughters by names Kanthamma, Lakshmi Devi. Bulle Ramappa had a son by

name Ramudu and daughters Lakshmi Devi and Savitri.

(ii) The averment in the plaint that regarding execution of relinquishment

deed, dated 12.06.1969 and custody of its original with Narayanappa, has been

denied.

(iii) The suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. In the earlier suit filed

by the plaintiff and her mother, for injunction, the defendants denied title and

hence, the plaintiffs therein should have asked for a declaration. The gift deed

dated 06.12.2007, alleged to have been executed by the plaintiff‟s mother, is

created only for a new cause of action.

8. The trial court, by order dated 05.02.2025, dismissed the application.

9. Heard Sri N. Subba Rao, learned senior counsel representing Sri N. Sai

Phanindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri M. Ravindra,

learned counsel for respondent No.1.

10. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that the suit O.S.No.95 of 2023,

filed by the plaintiff, is barred by limitation. The plaintiff and her mother filed suit

O.S.No.422 of 1993, and the defendants, by filing a written statement, denied

the title of the plaintiffs therein. However, the plaintiffs therein did not take steps

to amend the suit and continued the suit till the second appeal. The second

appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 23.11.2022. Thereafter, the present

suit was filed seeking a declaration of title and a perpetual injunction on

28.08.2023. The observation by the High Court will not create a new cause of

Page 6 of 16

action or will not save the limitation. The trial court failed to consider this aspect

and dismissed the petition.

11. Learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments:

a) Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) dead through LRs

and others

1

.

b) Shri Mukund Bhavan Trust and others Vs. Shrimant Chhatrapati

Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj Bhonsle and another

2

.

c) Channappa (D) Thr. LRs. Vs. Parvatewwa (D) Thr. L.R.s.

3

.

d) L.C. Hanumanthappa (since dead) represented by his LRs Vs. H.B.

Shivakumar

4

.

e) Khatri Hotels Private Limited and another Vs. Union of India and

another

5

.

12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 supported the

order passed by the trial court and contended that the limitation is a mixed

question of law and fact. The trial court considered these aspects and dismissed

the application. Learned counsel prayed to dismiss the revision.

13. Learned counsel for the 1

st

respondent relied on the following judgments:

a) P. Kumarakurubaran Vs. P. Narayanan and others

6

.

b) Karam Singh Vs. Amarjit Singh and others

7

.

1

(2020) 7 SCC 366 : 2020 SCC OnLine SC 562

2

(2024) 15 SCC 675 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3844

3

2026 SCC OnLine SC 552

4

(2016) 1 SCC 332 : 2015 SCC OnLine SC 759

5

(2011) 9 SCC 126 : 2011 SCC OnLine SC 1236

6

2025 SCC OnLine SC 975

7

2025 SCC OnLine SC 2240 : AIR 2025 SC 5041

Page 7 of 16

c) Chhotanben and another Vs. Kiritbhai Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and

others

8

.

d) Kamala Vs. K.T. Eshwara S.A

9

.

14. The points for consideration are:

1. Whether the plaint O.S.No. 95 of 2023 is liable to be rejected under Order

VII Rule 11 CPC?

2. Whether the order under revision suffers from any irregularity or illegality

warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?

15. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the courts below

failed to consider Ex. A10, relinquishment deed under which defendant No.1

relinquished his right in the plaint schedule property in exchange for other

property shown as „B‟ schedule, to the plaintiffs.

16. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents would contend

that both the courts held that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession of

the suit schedule property on the date of filing of the suit. Learned counsel

further argued that the plaintiffs‟ claim is based on Ex. A1 and the same was

denied by the defendants.

Reasoning by the Court:

17. The facts narrated supra need no iteration. It is an undisputed fact that the

earlier suit O.S.No. 422 of 1993 filed by the plaintiff and her mother seeking

perpetual injunction was dismissed, confirmed in the appeal and second appeal

by the High Court. The judgment in S.A.335 of 2005 was filed along with the

8

(2018) 6 SCC 422 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 352

9

(2008) 12 SCC 661 : 2018 SCC OnLine SC 727

Page 8 of 16

plaint. A document filed along with the plaint is part and parcel of the plaint.

Reference can be made to the case of The Church of Christ Charitable Trust

& Educational Charitable Society Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust

10

wherein it has been held as follows:

“13. In the light of the controversy, we have gone through all the

averments in the plaint. In paragraph 4 of the Plaint, it is alleged

that the 2nd defendant as agreement holder of the 1st defendant

and also as the registered Power of Attorney holder of the 1st

defendant executed the Agreement of Sale. In spite of our best

efforts, we could not find any particulars showing as to the

documents which are referred to as „agreement holder‟. We are

satisfied that neither the documents were filed along with the

Plaint nor the terms thereof have been set out in the Plaint. The

above mentioned two documents were to be treated as part of the

Plaint as being the part of the cause of action. It is settled law

that where a document is used upon and its terms are not set

out in the plaint but referred to in the Plaint, the said

document gets incorporated by reference in the plaint. This

position has been reiterated in U.S.Sasidharan Vs.

K.Karunakaran and another, 1989 (4) SCC 482 and Manohar

Joshi Vs. Nitin Bhaurao Patil and another, 1996 (1) SCC 169.”

(emphasis is mine)

18. Also, very recently the Hon‟ble Apex Court in N Asha Devi vs R

Aravind Kumar and another,

11

reiterated that when an application for

rejection of plaint is filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil

10

2012 (4) CTC 308

11

2026 INSC 908

Page 9 of 16

Procedure, 1908, only the averments in the plaint and the documents annexed

with it are relevant for consideration.

19. The suit O.S.No. 422 of 1995 was filed based upon the document dated

23.06.1969 which was marked as Ex.A.1. The said suit was dismissed and

both the appeal and second appeal were dismissed.

20. As seen from the judgment of the second appeal, one of the substantial

questions of law framed is whether the courts below properly appreciated the

document i.e. Ex.A10, relinquishment deed, dated 12.06.1969, in the light of

specific contention raised by the plaintiffs in the instant case?

21. At para 18 of the judgment of the second appeal, the Court observed

that defendant No.1 specifically denied Ex. A1, title deed of the plaintiffs under

which the plaintiffs are claiming title and possession over the plaint schedule

property. During the course of evidence, the defendants have produced

Ex.B1, registration copy of registered sale deed, dated 22.08.1961 to show

that the plaint schedule property i.e. „land in survey No.176-5 of an extent of

Ac.1-26 cents, was purchased by defendant No.1, which the plaintiffs are also

not disputing as they pleaded exchange of said land from defendant No.1

under Ex.A1. The appellate court dismissed the second appeal, by relying

upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Apex Court reported in Anathula Sudhakar

Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.R.s. and others

12

. The court observed as

below at para 21:

“… As held by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in Anathula Sudhakar

Vs. P. Buchi Reddy (dead) by L.R.s.. And others case (referred to

supra), though the suit is filed in the year 1995 driving the plaintiffs to

12

AIR 2008 SC 2033

Page 10 of 16

a fresh round of litigation after three decades would cause hardship to

them. But the scope civil cases are circumscribed by the limitations

placed by the rules of pleadings, nature of relief claimed and the court

fee paid. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the suit filed by

the plaintiffs seeking injunction simplicitor is not maintainable without

seeking declaration of title when the defendants have created a cloud

over the title of the plaintiffs.”

22. In the present suit O.S.No.95 of 2023, the plaintiff narrated about filing

suit O.S.No.422 of 1993, its dismissal etc. At para 5 of the plaint, it was

averred about the dismissal of the second appeal and the observations in the

second appeal. In the cause of action, it was pleaded about the exchange

deed, dated 12.06.1969, filing of suit etc. It was specifically pleaded that while

dismissing S.A.No.335 of 2005, the High Court gave a direction to file suit for

declaration of title.

23. As seen from the judgment dated 23.11.2022 in S.A.No.335 of 2005,

the Court observed that the defendants therein denied the title of the plaintiffs

therein, by filing written statements and a suit for injunction simpliciter was not

maintainable without seeking a declaration of title where the defendants had

raised a cloud thereon. As seen from the excerpts of the judgment, there is

neither direction to the appellants in the second appeal, i.e., the plaintiffs in

the present suit, to file suit for declaration nor liberty/leave was granted to

respondent No.1 to institute a fresh suit for declaration. Even if such liberty

had been expressly granted, that by itself would not have revived a dead

claim. It will not give life to a fresh cause and limitation.

Page 11 of 16

24. The Hon‟ble Apex Court in Smt. Arifa v. Abhiman Apartment Coop.

Housing Society Ltd.,

13

observed that notwithstanding that the High Court

had itself granted liberty to file a fresh comprehensive suit after the earlier

injunction suit failed, such liberty could not revive a time-barred cause and that

limitation had, in any event, to be reckoned in accordance with the period

prescribed by the statute. The relevant paras 10 & 11 are reproduced as

below:

“10. The entire substratum of the plaintiff‟s case is built upon the alleged

coercion and misrepresentation in execution of the PoA and subsequent

cancellation effected, which ground does not survive having been rejected

concurrently by three courts in the earlier proceeding, clearly barring the

present suit on the ground of res judicata. The issue now agitated was

substantially in issue in the earlier suit and decided against the plaintiff,

bringing in the rigour of Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code.

11. We perfectly agree with the findings in the impugned judgment [Abhiman

Apartment Coop. Housing Society Ltd. v. Kasim Sab Peersab Nadaf, 2023

SCC OnLine Kar 1578] regarding limitation and res judicata and cannot but

observe that the liberty granted by the High Court in the second appeal was

akin to flogging a dead horse; which cannot give a fresh lease of life to either

the cause of action; to save limitation or the grounds on which the declaration

and consequential relief has been prayed for in the present suit; which

grounds were already adjudicated in the earlier suit and found against the

plaintiff by three courts.”

25. The earlier suit, filed by respondent No.1 for injunction, in which the

petitioners denied the title, was already on record. The litigation was carried

out right up to this Court and failed at every stage. The plea of declaration of

13

(2025) 10 SCC 700

Page 12 of 16

title, available to her all along on the same cause of action, was never sought

to be incorporated therein. Once ownership was denied in the pleadings, it

became incumbent upon Respondent No.1 to seek the comprehensive relief

of a declaration of title, along with the consequential relief of an injunction. The

omission to seek such relief in the first round of litigation is significant and

cannot be cured through a subsequent suit by a clever drafting of the plaint.

26. Applying the above principles, this Court finds that the plaint in

O.S.No.95 of 2023, read together with the documents filed along with it,

including the judgments in S.A.No.335 of 2005, discloses that the dispute

regarding respondent No.1‟s title, and the cloud cast thereon by the

petitioners, is not of recent origin but dates back at least to the time of filing of

written statement in O.S.No.422 of 1995.

27. Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC mandates rejection of a plaint where the suit,

“appears from the statement in the plaint” to be barred by any law, including

the law of limitation. It is well settled that at this stage the Court is required to

look only at the averments in the plaint, read meaningfully and as a whole,

together with the documents filed along with it, without embarking upon a

roving enquiry into disputed questions of fact and without being influenced by

the defence set up in the written statement. Clever drafting cannot be

permitted to circumvent this well-settled rule, nor can a plaintiff be allowed to

create an illusion of a subsisting cause of action where none exists on a fair

reading of the plaint.

28. A reference can be made to Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji

Bhanusali,

14

and T. Arivandandam vs T.V. Satyapal,

15

wherein the Hon‟ble

14

(2020) 7 SCC 366

15

(1977) 4 SCC 467

Page 13 of 16

Apex Court emphasised that the power under Order VII Rule 11 is not merely

discretionary but obligatory once the plaint discloses that the suit is barred,

and that Courts must nip vexatious, cleverly drafted and time-barred litigation

in the bud rather than subject defendants to the ordeal of a full trial. Para 5 of

T. Arivandandam (supra) is reproduced as under:

“5. We have not the slightest hesitation in condemning the petitioner for

the gross abuse of the process of the court repeatedly

and unrepentently resorted to. From the statement of the facts found in

the judgment of the High Court, it is perfectly plain that the suit now

pending before the First Munsif‟s Court, Bangalore, is a flagrant misuse of

the mercies of the law in receiving plaints. The learned Munsif must

remember that if on a meaningful not formal reading of the plaint it is

manifestly vexatious, and meritless, in the sense of not disclosing a clear

right to sue, he should exercise his power under Order VII, Rule 11,

C.P.C. taking care to see that the ground mentioned therein is fulfilled.

And, if clever drafting has created the illusion of a cause of action,

nip it in the bud at the first hearing by examining the party

searchingly under Order X, C.P.C. An activist Judge is the answer to

irresponsible law suits. The trial Courts would insist imperatively on

examining the party at the first hearing so that bogus litigation can

be shot down at the earliest stage. The Penal Code is also resourceful

enough to meet such men, (Cr. XI) and must be triggered against them.”

(Emphasis is mine)

29. This legal position has been reiterated recently in Shri Mukund

Bhavan Trust v. Shrimant Chhatrapati Udayan Raje Pratapsinh Maharaj

Bhonsle

16

, wherein the Apex Court, while accepting that limitation is ordinarily

16

(2024) 15 SCC 675

Page 14 of 16

a mixed question of fact and law, held that where it is glaring from the plaint

averments themselves that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, the

Courts ought not to hesitate in granting relief under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC

and ought not to relegate the parties to trial merely to keep the question

notionally open.

30. The litigant must institute the suit within the time prescribed in the

Limitation Act. Normally, for a declaration of title, the suit must be filed within

three years as per Article 58 of the Limitation Act, when the right to sue

accrues. Even if Articles 64 and 65 are applied to the case at hand, still the

suit is barred by limitation. As held in Khatri Hotels (P) Ltd. v. Union of

India,

17

the Legislature‟s deliberate use of the word “first” between “sue” and

“accrued” signifies that where a right is founded on more than one cause of

action, limitation runs from the earliest accrual, and a subsequent or

successive infringement of the same right does not furnish a fresh starting

point.

31. The judgments relied upon by the respondents have no application to

the facts of the case. A close reading of all four decisions shows that they

proceed on a common premise that the plaint taken as a whole, did not on its

face, disclose that the suit was barred by limitation. Limitation could be

determined only by first resolving a genuine, evidence-dependent dispute as

to when the plaintiff acquired knowledge of a fraudulently or clandestinely

executed document, etc. This premise is wholly absent in the present case.

Here, the finding that the plaint is barred by limitation flows directly from the

plaintiff‟s own averments and the dates pleaded in the plaint itself, which, read

as a whole, demonstrate ex-facie that the suit is hopelessly time-barred. There

17

(2011) 9 SCC 126

Page 15 of 16

is no plea of a specific date of knowledge, concealment, or fraud that is

genuinely contested and would call for appreciation of evidence at trial.

32. Thus, given the discussion supra, this court is of the considered opinion

that the trial court failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. The trial court also

failed to address the scope of Order VII Rule 11(d) C.P.C. in a proper

perspective. The order under revision, if allowed to be continued, would result

in miscarriage of justice and thus, it brooks interference.

33. While exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of

India, in Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd. and Another Vs.

B. Gurappa Naidu and Others

18

, the Hon‟ble Apex Court, by referring to the

decisions reported in Shalini Shyam Shetty Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil

19

;

Estralla Rubber Vs. Dass Estate (P) Ltd.

20

, and Garment Craft Vs.

Prakash Chand Goel

21

considered the scope of supervisory jurisdiction under

Article 227 and summarised the principles as follows:

“35. In short, the principles laid down in the above matters are as follows:

a) The power of superintendence under Article 227 is not to be exercised

unless there has been an (a) unwarranted assumption of jurisdiction,

not vested in Court or tribunal, or (b) gross abuse of jurisdiction or (c)

an unjustifiable refusal to exercise jurisdiction vested in Courts or

tribunals.

b) It is also well settled that the High Court, while acting under this Article,

cannot exercise its power as an appellate court or substitute its own

18

2026 SCC OnLine SC 745

19

(2010) 8 SCC 329

20

(2001) 8 SCC 97

21

(2022) 4 SCC 181

Page 16 of 16

judgment in place of that of the subordinate court to correct an error,

which is not apparent on the face of the record.

c) The High Court exercising supervisory jurisdiction does not act as a

court of first appeal to reappreciate, reweigh the evidence or facts

upon which the determination under challenge is based. Supervisory

jurisdiction is not to correct every error of fact or even a legal flaw

when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The High Court

is not to substitute its own decision on facts and conclusion, for that of

the inferior court or tribunal.”

34. Given the above, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated

05.02.2025 in I.A.No.1090 of 2024 in O.S.No.95 of 2023 on the file of the

learned I Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu is set aside. I.A.No. 1090

of 2024 stands allowed and the suit O.S.No.95 of 2023 on the file of the

learned I Additional District Judge is rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d)

C.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand

closed.

___________________________

JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

Date : 25.08.2026

ikn

Whether the order is:

Speaking Yes/No / Recorded Yes/No

Reportable Yes/No / Non-Reportable Yes/No