Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Shabaha, vs Ms. D. Lakshmi, on 13 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
CONTEMPT CASE No. 662 of 2021
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
14. 13.04.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J
and
G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
Heard Mr. P. Rajasekhar, learned counsel
for the petitioners and Mr. V. R. Reddy Kovvuri,
learned counsel for respondent no.2.
2. Earlier, the respondent no.2 had
undertaken to get the sale deed executed in his
favour cancelled as the same was done despite
the order of stay of the Judgment passed by the
Court below in the suit on the basis of which
such sale deed was executed.
3. Today, learned counsel for respondent
no.2, submitted that the sale deed executed in
favour of respondent no.2 by the Court
concerned has been cancelled.
4. Learned counsel for petitioners
submitted that based on the said sale deed
executed in favour of respondent no.2, he in
turn has executed sale deed in favour of two
other vendees and the same still subsists.
5. On a query, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 submitted that in the
application itself, respondent no.2 had indicated
that he now does not have any right over the
property. However, to prevent any confusion as
also to take matters to their logical conclusion,
within two weeks, he would execute cancellation
deeds with regard to the two subsequent sale
deeds executed by him in favour of third parties
based on the sale deed which now stands
cancelled.
6. The Court had also called for a report
from the concerned Court below as to under
what circumstances, the Court had sent the
document for registration in favour of
respondent no.2 with regard to the property in
question despite there being stay of the original
decree and judgment in favour of respondent
no.2. Response has been received from the
concerned Court in which the main ground
urged is that in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, any stay which has not
been extended would automatically seize to exist
after six months.
7. In response to such stand, learned
counsel for petitioners while relying on the
decisions of the learned Single Judge of this
Court, in K. Ranga Prasad Varma V.
Kotikalapudi Sitarama Murthy and Another,
(2019 SCC OnLine AP 69) and Sanaka Kiran
Kumar V. Tadikonda Krishna Murthy, (2021
SCC OnLine AP 3821) contends that such
stand is absolutely untenable as the Judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relates to only
pending proceedings in trial and not with regard
to the stay granted either in appeal or in
execution proceedings.
8. In the tentative view of the Court, the
stand taken by learned counsel for the
petitioners appears to be correct. Moreover, from
the order passed by the Court below it does not
transpire that such fact was represented before
the Court below and the Court was even
conscious of the same.
9. Thus, for being satisfied with the
correct facts and circumstances of the case, the
Court deems it appropriate to call for the legible
and attested copies of the entire case papers in
EP No.6 of 2012 in O.S.No.17 of 2018 on the file
of the Court of V Additional District Judge,
Rayachoty, including all applications and docket
orders, which may have been filed in the Court
below. It is made clear that if any order has
been recorded in hand writing, the same shall
be duly typed before being sent to this Court.
Such copies of the record be sent to this Court
latest by 22.04.2022. The Registry shall
communicate the order to the concerned Court
below latest by 19.04.2022.
10. The matter be listed on 27.04.2022.
______________________________
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)
______________________________
(G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)
Mjl/*
CC by 18.04.2022.
