HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.214 OF 2013
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated 06.09.2012, in E.P.No.29 of 2012 in O.S.No.2460 of 2004 on the file of the VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam, where under the Execution Petition filed under Order XXI, Ruled 54 and 64 to 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for attachment and sale of the E.P., schedule property in the public auction to satisfy the decree amount in O.S.No.2460 of 2004 is decreed.
2. The facts leading to the present revision petition are that, the DHR Company filed a suit in O.S.No.2460 of 2004 against the Judgment Debtors 1 to 3 and the same was decreed on 30.10.2008. Questioning the said decree, the Judgment Debtors filed A.S.No.164 of 2009, which was dismissed on 19.10.2010. As the Judgment Debtors did not pay any amount even after dismissal of the first appeal, E.P.No.29 of 2012 was BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013 Page 2 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022 filed to attach the petition schedule property and to sell the same for recovery of the amount due under the decree.
3. The Judgment Debtors filed counter denying the averments of the execution petition and contending that they preferred Second Appeal vide S.R.No.4179 of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.165 of 2009 and the same is within the knowledge of the D.Hr., Without making any enquiry regarding the particulars of the schedule property, the D.Hr., filed the E.P., The schedule property situated in Muralinagar is disputed land between the private parties and the same is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The properties sought for attachment for realization of the decretal amount is standing in the name of one Smt.K.Subadra, who is not at all a party to the original decree.
4. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by any one of the parties before the Executing Court.
5. On hearing both parties, the Executing Court held that the schedule mentioned properties are liable to be attached to satisfy the debt due under the decree and allowed the BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013 Page 3 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022 Execution Petition, against which the present revision petition is filed.
7. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/judgment debtors and Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the decree holder.
8. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the Executing Court failed to see that the property under the attachment belongs to one Smt. K.Subadra, who is not at all a party to the suit and that a Second Appeal was filed against the decree and judgment in the Appeal Suit and the same is pending before the High Court.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/ judgment debtors submitted that the respondent/decree holder filed Execution Petition under Order 21, Rules 54 and 64 to 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking attachment and sale of the E.P., schedule immovable property and the Executing Court did not consider the objections raised by the judgment debtors in their counter filed in the execution petition and allowed the execution petition by issuing attachment warrant under Order BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013 Page 4 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022 21, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attaching the E.P., schedule immovable property.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that the E.P., schedule property does not belong to the judgment debtors and the property belongs to a third party by name Smt. K.Subadra and therefore, the attachment ordered by the Executing Court is illegal and liable to be set aside.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder vehemently argued that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Executing Court and that there are no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Executing Court.
12. In the light of the above context of the revision petitioners/judgment debtors and the respondent/decree holder, the point that arises for consideration is:-
"Whether the Executing Court committed any irregularity in the order dt.06.09.2012 passed in E.P.No.29 of 2012 in O.S.No.2460 of 2004?"
POINT:-
13. It is an admitted fact that the respondent/decree holder filed a suit in O.S.No.2460 of 2004 against the revision petitioners/judgment debtors for recovery of money due in BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013 Page 5 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022 respect of a chit transaction and it was decreed on 19.10.2010. The contention of the revision petitioners is that they filed Second Appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in S.R.No.4179 of 2011. The revision petitioners did not file any proof to show that the Second Appeal was admitted and that the execution of the decree was stayed in the Second Appeal.
14. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the E.P., schedule immovable property located at Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam belongs to one Smt. K.Subadra, who is not a party to the proceedings. The learned Judge of the Executing Court considered the said contention of the judgment debtors raised in the execution petition and held that no document was produced by the judgment debtors in support of their contention regarding the plea that the property belongs to Smt.K.Subadra and further that the matter was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court between some private parties in respect of the E.P., schedule property.
15. The revision petitioners, admittedly, did not adduce any evidence before the Executing Court on the above aspects in support of their plea that the E.P., schedule property belongs to one Smt. K.Subadra and that a matter was pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court between the private parties in respect of the BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013 Page 6 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022 E.P., schedule property and the said property is located at Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam. It is also an admitted fact that the alleged third party by name Smt. K.Subadra also did not file any claim application before the Executing Court under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure to believe the plea of the judgment debtors in the case.
16. In that view of the matter, I do not find any irregularity committed by the Executing Court in rejecting the pleas of the judgment debtors and ordering attachment of the E.P., schedule immovable property.
17. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
__________
BVLNC, J
10th October, 2022
dvsn
BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013
Page 7 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.214 OF 2013 Date:10.10.2022 DVSN