Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sri Kurrer Suryanarayana, vs M/S. Dhanalakshmi Chits, on 10 October, 2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.214 OF 2013
O R D E R:
This Civil Revision Petition is directed under Article
227 of the Constitution of India against the order, dated
06.09.2012, in E.P.No.29 of 2012 in O.S.No.2460 of 2004 on the
file of the VI Addl. Junior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam,
where under the Execution Petition filed under Order XXI,
Ruled 54 and 64 to 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for
attachment and sale of the E.P., schedule property in the public
auction to satisfy the decree amount in O.S.No.2460 of 2004 is
decreed.
2. The facts leading to the present revision petition are
that, the DHR Company filed a suit in O.S.No.2460 of 2004
against the Judgment Debtors 1 to 3 and the same was decreed
on 30.10.2008. Questioning the said decree, the Judgment
Debtors filed A.S.No.164 of 2009, which was dismissed on
19.10.2010. As the Judgment Debtors did not pay any amount
even after dismissal of the first appeal, E.P.No.29 of 2012 was
BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013
Page 2 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022
filed to attach the petition schedule property and to sell the
same for recovery of the amount due under the decree.
3. The Judgment Debtors filed counter denying the
averments of the execution petition and contending that they
preferred Second Appeal vide S.R.No.4179 of 2011 before the
Hon'ble High Court against the Judgment and Decree passed in
A.S.No.165 of 2009 and the same is within the knowledge of the
D.Hr., Without making any enquiry regarding the particulars of
the schedule property, the D.Hr., filed the E.P., The schedule
property situated in Muralinagar is disputed land between the
private parties and the same is pending before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The properties sought for attachment for
realization of the decretal amount is standing in the name of
one Smt.K.Subadra, who is not at all a party to the original
decree.
4. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by
any one of the parties before the Executing Court.
5. On hearing both parties, the Executing Court held
that the schedule mentioned properties are liable to be attached
to satisfy the debt due under the decree and allowed the
BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013
Page 3 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022
Execution Petition, against which the present revision petition is
filed.
7. Heard Sri T.Nagarjuna Reddy, learned counsel for
the revision petitioners/judgment debtors and Sri Marri
Venkata Ramana, learned counsel appearing for the decree
holder.
8. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the
Executing Court failed to see that the property under the
attachment belongs to one Smt. K.Subadra, who is not at all a
party to the suit and that a Second Appeal was filed against the
decree and judgment in the Appeal Suit and the same is
pending before the High Court.
9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners/
judgment debtors submitted that the respondent/decree holder
filed Execution Petition under Order 21, Rules 54 and 64 to 66
of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking attachment and sale of
the E.P., schedule immovable property and the Executing Court
did not consider the objections raised by the judgment debtors
in their counter filed in the execution petition and allowed the
execution petition by issuing attachment warrant under Order
BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013
Page 4 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022
21, Rule 54 of the Code of Civil Procedure for attaching the E.P.,
schedule immovable property.
10. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners
submitted that the E.P., schedule property does not belong to
the judgment debtors and the property belongs to a third party
by name Smt. K.Subadra and therefore, the attachment ordered
by the Executing Court is illegal and liable to be set aside.
11. The learned counsel for the respondent/decree
holder vehemently argued that there is no illegality in the order
passed by the Executing Court and that there are no grounds to
interfere with the order passed by the Executing Court.
12. In the light of the above context of the revision
petitioners/judgment debtors and the respondent/decree
holder, the point that arises for consideration is:-
"Whether the Executing Court committed any
irregularity in the order dt.06.09.2012 passed in
E.P.No.29 of 2012 in O.S.No.2460 of 2004?"
POINT:-
13. It is an admitted fact that the respondent/decree
holder filed a suit in O.S.No.2460 of 2004 against the revision
petitioners/judgment debtors for recovery of money due in
BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013
Page 5 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022
respect of a chit transaction and it was decreed on 19.10.2010.
The contention of the revision petitioners is that they filed
Second Appeal before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in
S.R.No.4179 of 2011. The revision petitioners did not file any
proof to show that the Second Appeal was admitted and that the
execution of the decree was stayed in the Second Appeal.
14. The contention of the revision petitioners is that the
E.P., schedule immovable property located at Murali Nagar,
Visakhapatnam belongs to one Smt. K.Subadra, who is not a
party to the proceedings. The learned Judge of the Executing
Court considered the said contention of the judgment debtors
raised in the execution petition and held that no document was
produced by the judgment debtors in support of their
contention regarding the plea that the property belongs to
Smt.K.Subadra and further that the matter was pending before
the Hon'ble Apex Court between some private parties in respect
of the E.P., schedule property.
15. The revision petitioners, admittedly, did not adduce
any evidence before the Executing Court on the above aspects in
support of their plea that the E.P., schedule property belongs to
one Smt. K.Subadra and that a matter was pending before the
Hon'ble Apex Court between the private parties in respect of the
BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013
Page 6 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022
E.P., schedule property and the said property is located at
Murali Nagar, Visakhapatnam. It is also an admitted fact that
the alleged third party by name Smt. K.Subadra also did not file
any claim application before the Executing Court under Order
21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure to believe the plea of
the judgment debtors in the case.
16. In that view of the matter, I do not find any
irregularity committed by the Executing Court in rejecting the
pleas of the judgment debtors and ordering attachment of the
E.P., schedule immovable property.
17. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________
BVLNC, J
10th October, 2022
dvsn
BVLNC, J CRP No.214 of 2013
Page 7 of 7 Dt.10.10.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.V.L.N.CHAKRAVARTHI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.214 OF 2013
Date:10.10.2022
DVSN
