Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Bolisetty Prem Sai vs Rallapalli Venkata Lakshmana ... on 24 August, 2022
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI
Civil Revision Petition No.738 of 2020
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 CPC, is preferred
against the docket order, dated 20.02.2020, passed in E.P.No.68 of
2013 in O.S.No.62 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Additional Senior
Civil Judge, at Machilipatnam.
2. Heard Sri M. Radhakrishna, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner. In spite of service of notice on 1st respondent/defendant,
there is no appearance on his behalf. Respondent Nos.2 to 25 are
shown to be not necessary parties to this revision.
3. The facts which are relevant and necessary for disposal of this
revision petition, in brief, are as follows:
Questioning the decree and judgment, dated 12.10.2012, passed
in O.S.No.62 of 1996, judgment debtor Nos.17 & 18 in E.P.No.68 of
2013 in the aforesaid suit, preferred appeal in A.S.No.180 of 2014
before this Court. Along with the appeal, they also filed
A.S.M.P.No.764 of 2014 seeking interim stay against the said decree
and judgment. This Court, 17.04.2014, granted interim stay subject
to deposit of costs within four weeks from the said date. Accordingly,
the JDrs complied with the said order, by depositing costs of
Rs.30,556/- on 29.04.2014. Subsequently, the DHr filed petition
before this Court to vacate the stay granted in A.S.M.P.No.1126 of
2014 and the said petition was dismissed, by order dated 26.06.2014,
and the interim order was made absolute. Thus, the orders passed in
A.S.M.P.No.764 of 2014 became final as the respondent/DHr has not
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.738 of 2020
moved any petition against the said orders. Hence, an application in
E.A.No.238 of 2019 is filed by the petitioner/JDr No.17 to reopen the
matter for hearing the judgment debtors in the execution petition.
4. The execution Court, by docket order, dated 20.02.2020,
observed that the judgment debtors have not produced the extended
speaking order of stay from 18.04.2018 till date and therefore, further
proceedings shall continue. The order of the execution Court, dated
20.02.2020 reads as under:
"As stay is not extended by a speaking order, as per the
directions of the Honourable Supreme Court of India and as
per circular order of the Honourable High Court in ROC
No.2573/OP Cell/2018, dt.18.4.2018, the stay will
automatically lapse after 6 months. In this case, stay was
granted on 26.6.2014. Hence as per the said circular, the
trial Court, on expiry of 6 months from the date of stay, in
view of no speaking order extending stay order, resume the
proceedings without waiting for other intimation. The
judgment debtor No.17 and 18 have not produced extended
speaking order of stay from 18.4.2018 till this day. Hence
further proceedings shall continue in this case. As a last
chance for obtaining speaking order of extension of stay, call
on 10.03.2020."
5. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner, who is judgment debtor
No.17, has preferred this revision contending that the order impugned
of the trial Court is perverse and contrary to the principles laid down
by the apex Court. The trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction and caused
substantial injury to the petitioner. It failed to consider the case of the
petitioner in a right perspective and hence, the order impugned is
liable to be set aside.
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.738 of 2020
6. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that in spite of
an absolute order passed by the appellate Court staying the execution
of the decree which is the subject matter before the execution Court,
the impugned order was passed with an erroneous view that the
decision of the Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road
Agency Private Limited v. Central Bureau of Investigation1 is
applicable even to the proceedings in execution. Learned counsel for
the revision petitioner submitted that in spite of the earlier decisions of
this Court in K.Ranga Prasad Varma v. Kotikalapudi Sitarama
Murthy and another 2 and Grandhi Yugandher v. M/s. Jyothi
Financiers, rep. by its Managing Partner, Samayamantula
Umamaeshwara Rao 3 clarifying the legal position that the said
decision of the Supreme Court is applicable to the proceedings of a
civil or criminal trial only and not to the execution proceedings, the
execution Court, in the present case, has passed the impugned order.
7. This Court in K.Ranga Prasad (2nd supra), had an occasion to
deal with the question of application of the directions of the Supreme
Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Limited (1
supra) in relation to the execution proceedings and held that the
judgment of the apex Court demonstrates in vivid and clear terms,
that contingency of expiry of stay after six months would arise only in
cases where there is stay of trial and found fault with the order passed
by the learned I Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam in the
execution proceedings before it applying the said decision to the
execution proceedings. Similarly, in case of Grandhi Yugandher (3rd
supra), this Court found fault with the execution Court in applying the
2018 SCC Online SC 310
2019 (4) ALT 345 (A.P)
2019 (6) ALT 461 (AP)
BSB, J
C.R.P.No.738 of 2020
said decision to the execution proceedings under an erroneous view
and held that the said decision applies only to the order of stay against
the proceedings of civil or criminal trial only.
8. As such, the execution Court, in the present case, while passing
the impugned order has not properly applied the directions of the
Supreme Court in Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private
Limited (1 supra) to the facts of the case before it. As such, the
impugned order to the extent of directing further proceedings to
continue is liable to be set aside and the execution Court is directed to
follow the order of stay so long as it remains in force.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________
B.S BHANUMATHI, J
24th August, 2022
RAR
