S. Ramachnadraiah vs P Guruswamy Naidu
2021 Latest Caselaw 320 AP

       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

              CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 477 of 2019

ORDER:

This civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner/decree holder,

aggrieved by the docket order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati, in E.P.No.126 of 2018 in O.S.No.421 of 2003.

The decree holder filed the execution petition under Order XXI Rule 35 of

CPC for removal of super structures raised over 'B' schedule property and

for delivery of possession of the same. The execution Court in its order

dated 29.08.2018 allowed the execution petition and passed the order for

delivery of 'B' schedule property to the decree holder by removing the super

structures made on 'B' schedule property through process of the Court.

Accordingly, warrant of delivery was issued and the matter was posted to

19.09.2018. Thereafter, it appears, the Field Assistant/Amin of the Court

went to effect the delivery, but having found that one Muniramaiah, a third

party, was in possession of plot No.2 but not the 4th judgment debtor, he

returned the warrant without effecting delivery. Thereafter, the Court passed

the docket order dated 13.12.2018 as follows:

"As such, the present execution petition is closed by giving liberty to the decree holder to proceed according to law"

Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed.

2. The main grievance of the petitioner/decree holder is that the

execution Court ought not to have closed the execution petition, rather it

should have posted the matter for further hearing of the decree holder and

the judgment debtors. By abruptly closing the execution petition, the UDPR,J C.R.P.No.477 of 2019

petitioner lost a valuable opportunity to make his submission as against the

report of the Field Assistant/Amin. Sri T.V.S. Prabhakar Rao, learned

counsel for the petitioner thus prays to set aside the impugned order and

direct the execution Court to hear the matter in respect of the report of the

Field Assistant/Amin and then pass a suitable order on merits.

3. In this case, notice is not served on the respondents/judgment debtors.

However, considering the innocuous relief sought for, this Court is of the

view that orders can be passed in this civil revision petition.

4. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is allowed and the impugned

order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati,

in E.P.No.126 of 2018 in O.S.No.421 of 2003 is set aside and the Principal

Senior Civil Judge, Tirupati is directed to post the matter for hearing of the

decree holder, the judgment debtors and other concerned in respect of the

report of the Field Assistant/Amin and then pass a suitable order on merits in

accordance with law expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending for

consideration shall stand closed.

__________________________ U. DURGA PRASAD RAO, J 22nd January, 2021

Note: Issue C.C. by 27.01.2021.

(b/o) cbs UDPR,J C.R.P.No.477 of 2019

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE U. DURGA PRASAD RAO

C.R.P.No. 477 of 2019

22nd January, 2021 cbs