Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs Central Bureau Of India. on 6 December, 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.176 of 2021
ORDER:
The respondents herein filed O.S.No.194 of 2006 before
the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for recovery of
certain amount of money on the basis of mortgage against the
defendant therein. This suit was allowed by way of judgment
and decree dated 09.11.2015. Thereafter, when the execution of
the said judgment and decree was initiated, the petitioner had
filed a claim petition, claiming ownership of the property which
was sought to be sold under the said execution petition and the
said claim made in E.A.No.139 of 2010 in E.P.No.107 of 2008
was rejected on 09.11.2015. Aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner had moved the Principal District Judge, Krishna,
Machilipatnam, by way of A.S.No.01 of 2016 which was also
dismissed on 08.02.2017. Thereupon, the petitioner had moved
this Court by way of S.A.No.146 of 2017. This Court had initially
granted stay of proceedings in execution, for a certain time and
thereafter, by an order dated 03.03.2017 had directed that the
interim order was to continue. The Second Appeal is pending
before this Court.
2. While the said appeal is pending, the respondents
had pressed for execution of E.P.No.107 of 2008. At that stage,
the petitioner placed reliance upon the order of this Court dated
03.03.2017 to contend that the execution petition could not be
taken up in view of the orders of this Court dated 03.03.2017.
3. The trial Court relying upon the circular orders of
this Court in ROC.No.2573/OP cell/2018 dated 18.04.2018
2 RRR,J.
CRP.No.176 of 2021
which was issued in compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Central Bureau of India.,1 took the view
that unless the order dated 03.03.2017 is extended by way of a
fresh speaking order, there would be no bar for prosecuting
E.P.No.107 of 2008 and accordingly, passed a docket order
dated 04.03.2020.
4. The issue of whether the directions of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court would be applicable to Execution Petitions also
has been considered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in
K.Ranga Prasad Varms vs. Kotikalapudi Sitarama Murthy
and another.2 The learned Single Judge after considering the
entire issue had held that the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court would not be applicable to Execution Petitions. In view of
the said Judgment, the view taken by the Executing Court is
incorrect and requires to be corrected by this Court.
5. Sri Parthasaradhy Achuta, learned counsel for the
respondents would point out that the docket order is dated
03.03.2020 while the date of the order in the certified copy is
shown as 04.03.2020. He would also submit that the prayer in
the civil revision petition seeks to set-aside the order dated
29.01.2020 in I.A.No.l42 of 2019 in G.W.O.P.No.48 of 2018
which would not be relevant for the present case. It appears
that there is an inadvertent error in recording the details of the
order which is sought to be set aside. In view of this inadvertent
error, the petitioner is permitted to carry out necessary
ILR 2020 NULL 419= 2020(5)KHC 568
2019 (4) ALT 345 (A.P.)
3 RRR,J.
CRP.No.176 of 2021
amendments in the petition to rectify the date and discrepancy
of the order which is under reference to be the order dated
04.03.2020 in E.A.No.131 of 2010 in E.P.No.107 of 2008.
6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall
stand closed.
____________________________
R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J
06.12.2021
RJS
4 RRR,J.
CRP.No.176 of 2021
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.176 of 2021
06.12.2021
RJS
