Telangana High Court
Ras Ai Khaimah Investment Authority vs Mr. Nimmagadda Prasad on 26 September, 2025
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3531 OF 2025
Sri K.Vivek Reddy, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr.Vamshi Krishna, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner.
JUDGMENT:(Per Hon'ble Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya)
1. The Civil Revision Petitioner is a Decree Holder since 2022.
2. A judgment and decree dated 02.02.2022 was passed by the Ras Al Khaimah Court of First Instance, Civil Plenary Circuit in Civil Case No.60 of 2020 filed by the petitioner/Decree Holder for recovery of money of about Rs.600 Crores including interests.
3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner seeks to invoke the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and urges that it is necessary for appropriate directions to be issued to the learned Principal Special Court in the Cadre of District Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Hyderabad (Commercial Court) to expedite the Commercial Execution Petition No.19 of 2023 which was filed by the petitioner in the year 2023.
4. Learned Senior Counsel has taken the Court through the relevant orders.
5. We have seen the series of docket orders/status of the proceedings pending before the learned Executing Court. A docket order dated 18.06.2025 records that although the 2 petitioner/Decree Holder explained the urgency of the proceedings in the Execution Petition, learned Executing Court expressed its difficulty in doing so, since matters were already Reserved for Orders from January to June, 2025. The docket order dated 21.08.2025 makes Execution Petition returnable on 26.09.2025, which is today. Learned Senior Counsel informs the Court that the matter was passed over today.
6. We have considered the relevant paragraphs of a recent Supreme Court Judgment delivered on 06.03.2025 in Periyammal (Dead) through LRs. & Ors. v. V.Rajamani & Another 1 where the Supreme Court reiterated the observations in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and Ors. 2, in terms of the mandate on the Executing Courts to dispose of the execution proceedings within six (06) months from the date of filing which may be extended by the Court only upon recording reasons for doing so. We have also seen the Circular issued by this Court on 06.05.2025 in R.O.C.No.3436/OP Cell/2025 to the District Judiciary in terms of the directions contained in Periyammal's case (supra) for disposing of Execution Petitions, within a stipulated time.
7. Since the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner/Decree Holder is pending for almost two years, we deem it necessary to dispose of the present CRP by directing the learned Commercial 1 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 507 2 (2021) 6 SCC 418 3 Court at Hyderabad to dispose of the pending Execution Petition (CEP No.19 of 2023) in terms of the judgment and directions passed in the Periyammal's case (supra).
8. We also deem it fit to hold that in the event the learned Commercial Court is unable to dispose of the CEP within a reasonable period of time, the learned Special Judge for Trial and Disposal of Commercial Disputes at Ranga Reddy may dispose of C.E.P.No.19 of 2023 filed by the petitioner herein within a reasonable period of time expediting the Execution Petition. We may reiterate the view taken by the Supreme Court in Sundaram Finance Limited v. Abdul Samad and Another 3, where it was held that Execution Petitions can be filed anywhere in the country where the decree can be executed. The principle laid down in Sundaram Finance (supra ) is also applicable to Execution Petitions filed pursuant to a decree obtained by a foreign party.
9. As part of supervisory jurisdiction, we also direct the learned Commercial Court at Ranga Reddy to dispose of the pending Execution Petitions since learned Senior Counsel submits that the Judgment Debtor also has assets in Hyderabad/Ranga Reddy District.
3 (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 622 4
10. Needless to say, the concerned Commercial Court shall expedite the proceedings by conducting day to day hearing, if possible.
11. CRP No.3531 of 2025, along with all connected applications, is accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. There shall be no order as to costs.
__________________________________ MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA, J _____________________________ GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, J DATE: 26.09.2025 Note: Issue C.C. today.
(B/o.) EDS 5 THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3531 OF 2025 DATE:26.09.2025 EDS