Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Katuri Devi vs Gangineni Subrahmanya Venkata ... on 15 December, 2021
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.198 of 2020
ORDER:-
The petitioner had purchased certain property which was
the subject of a mortgage suit in O.S.No.214 of 1999. The
petitioner was a 3rd party to the suit. This suit was decreed in
favour of the 2nd respondent herein, and the suit schedule
property was sold, by way of public auction, in E.P.No.174 of
2005 and the same had been purchased by the 1st respondent
herein. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed E.A.No.167 of 2010
for delivery of the property. At that stage, the petitioner herein
filed a claim petition in E.A.No.176 of 2011, on the ground that,
he had purchased the property without notice of any of the
encumbrances on the property and had made considerable
development over the said property. This application was
dismissed on 28.04.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner filed
A.S.No.172 of 2016 which was dismissed by the appellate Court
on 08.09.2017. After the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner
filed O.S.No.65 of 2018 to declare that the sale was secured by
defendants 1, 2, 3 and 6 in that suit by playing fraud on the
Principal Senior Civil Judge in E.P.No.174 of 2005 in
O.S.No.214 of 1999 and for consequential reliefs. In the said
suit, the petitioner filed I.A.No.681 of 2018, for temporary
injunction, and the same was dismissed by an order dated
20.02.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed
C.M.A.No.131 of 2019 along with I.A.No.1 of 2019 which was
dismissed on 12.06.2019. After the dismissal of these
applications, the petitioner filed a Second Appeal against the
Judgment and Decree dated 08.09.2017 in A.S.No.172 of 2016.
2. As there was a delay of 644 days in filing the second
appeal, an application for condoning the said delay has been
filed and the same is still pending. The 1st respondent requested
for delivery of possession of the property in which the petitioner
has presently constructed a house. It appears that the 1st
respondent has filed E.A.No.50 of 2020, for breaking open the
lock of the house to effect delivery of the same to the 1st
respondent. As delivery of the property was not being done
under E.A.No.167 of 2010, E.A.No.407 of 2018 was filed to
arrest all the obstructers. E.A.No.101 of 2019 was filed for
providing police assistance. It appears that both these
applications have been allowed.
3. As there was obstruction before the Executing
Court, an order dated 22.01.2020 had been passed in E.A.No.50
of 2020 by the Executing Court directing breaking open of the
lock for delivery of possession.
4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has
approached this Court, by way of the present revision petition.
5. Sri J.U.M.V.Prasad learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that E.A.No.167 of 2010 is an application for delivery of
possession and there is no prayer for breaking open of the lock.
He submits that the order of the Executing Court dated
22.01.2020 is clearly beyond the relief sought in E.A.No.167 of
2010 and as such, the same has to be set-aside.
6. Heard Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st
respondent and Sri P.Rajasekhar, learned counsel for the 2nd
respondent.
7. Sri S.Subba Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st
respondent contends that E.A.No.50 of 2020 is filed for breaking
open the lock and the docket proceedings of Executing Court
clearly show that as the order of delivery with police aid was
unexecuted the petition filed by the 1st respondent for breaking
open the lock had been allowed. He submits that it is only on
account of this finding that the Executing Court had directed to
break open the lock.
8. The crux of the case is that the order of the
Executing Court is beyond the relief sought in E.A.No.167 of
2010, which shows that there is no prayer for breaking open the
lock. However, the prayer in E.A.No.50 of 2020 relates to
breaking open the lock of the premises in the suit schedule
property. The docket proceedings recorded in E.A.No.167 of
2010 is to the effect that the application in E.A.No.50 of 2020
has been allowed and accordingly, direction was given for
breaking open of the lock and handing over possession of the
property.
9. In the circumstances, the contention of the
petitioner that the relief granted by the Executing Court is
beyond the prayer cannot be accepted.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, in this Civil
Revision Petition, shall stand closed.
________________________________
JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
Date : 15-12-2021
RJS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.198 of 2020
15-12-2021
RJS
