Friday, 01, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Korlepara Ramalakshmi vs Korleparu Chendara Rao
2022 Latest Caselaw 5002 AP

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 5002 AP
Judgement Date : 4 August, 2022

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Korlepara Ramalakshmi vs Korleparu Chendara Rao on 4 August, 2022
Bench: D Ramesh
                             1



       THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.929 of 2022

O R D E R:

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by

the order, dated 22.04.2022 in E.P.No.13 of 2022 in

O.S.No.133 of 1988, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Tadepalligudem.

2) Heard Sri Kambhampati Ramesh Babu, learned

Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri V. Satyanarayana Nekkanti,

learned counsel for the Respondent and perused the material

available on record.

3) The Petitioner is the Judgment Debtor and the 2nd

respondent, representing the 1st respondent (i.e.,) Decree

Holder in E.P.No.13 of 2022 in O.S.No.133 of 1988, on the file

of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

4) The facts of the case are that originally the 1st

Respondent/Decree Holder filed a suit in O.S.No.133 of 1988,

on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem and

obtained a decree in his favour. In the decree, the Court

directed the petitioner to execute a regular sale deed in favour

of the 1st respondent and later delivered the schedule property

with the stipulated time fixed by the Court. But, as per the

direction of the Court, the petitioner failed to comply the

direction. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed Execution

Petition in E.P.No.35 of 1994 and the same was closed as the

reason that the petitioner preferred appeal against the decree

and judgment of the trial Court. In the meanwhile, the 1st

respondent executed a registered Will, dated 22.02.2017

bequeathing the petition schedule property to Kadiyala Surya

Nanda Kumari, who is none other than the wife of the 2nd

respondent herein, and also stating that the 2nd respondent is

entitled to continue the Court proceedings till the delivery of

the petitions schedule property through Court process of law.

Thereafter, on the next day i.e., on 23.02.2017 the 1st

respondent died. As such, the 2nd respondent filed the

E.P.No.13 of 2022 to direct the Judgment Debtor to execute

the regular sale deed in favour of the legatee of the registered

Will, dated 22.02.2017 in default Court may be pleased to

execute sale deed in favour of legatee of the Will and order to

deliver the schedule property to the 2nd petitioner through

Court process of law under the provisions of Order 21 Rule 34

of CPC. On 22.04.2022 the Executing Court issued fresh

warrant of delivery on payment of process along with police aid

and break open by 20.06.2022. Aggrieved by the said order,

the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

5) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

Executing Court ought to have seen that unless sale deed is

executed, the question of issuance of warrant of delivery does

not arise.

6) Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent is accepted

the contention of the petitioner and requested to remand the

matter to the Executing Court.

7) Having heard both the learned counsel and upon

perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that

unless sale deed is executed, the question of issuance of

warrant of delivery does not arise. The Executing Court ought

not to have passed orders issuing fresh warrant of delivery on

payment process along with police aid and break open the

door. Therefore, the order passed by the Executing Court in

E.P.No.13 of 2022 in O.S.No.133 of 1988 is liable to be set

aside and remanded back to the Execution Court to pass

orders in accordance with law.

8) Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed

of with the following directions:

i) The order, dated 22.04.2022 in E.P.No.13 of 2022 in

O.S.No.133 of 1988, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Tadepalligudem, is hereby set aside.

ii) The learned Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, is

directed to pass orders afresh, in accordance with law, as

expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one

month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9) There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

______________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt.04.08.2022 Note: Issue CC tomorrow.

B/o PGR

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND

C.R.P.NO.929 of 2022

Dt.04.08.2022

PGR

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter