Sree. Rayaiaseema Sugar And ... vs Muppala Usharani,
2022 Latest Caselaw 7606 AP

                                   1



    IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAR3AVATI

            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.335, 412, 431, 435, 439, 440, 443,
453, 455, 467, 486, 506, 508, 517, 521, 523, 524 and 543 of 2021

C.R.P.No.335 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another .... Petitioners

                                  And
Muppala Usharani                                       ....     Respondent

C.R.P.No.412 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another.... Petitioners And Kambam Jayabharata Reddy .... Respondent C.R.P.No.431 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another .... Petitioners And Avula Nagalingeswara Reddy .... Respondent C.R.P.No.435 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another .... Petitioners And Bekkem Subba Reddy .... Respondent C.R.P.No.439 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another .... Petitioners And Avula Varalakshmi .... Respondent

C.R.P.No.440 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another .... Petitioners And R.Nagarathnamma .... Respondent C.R.P.No.443 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another.... Petitioners And Rachala Ramaiah .... Respondent C.R.P.No.453 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another.... Petitioners And Elugoti Bharathi .... Respondent C.R.P.No.455 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another.... Petitioners And Sirigiri Adinarayana Reddy .... Respondent C.R.P.No.467 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another.... Petitioners And Avula Lakshmi Narayana Reddy .... Respondent C.R.P.No.486 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another.... Petitioners And Rachala Ramaiah .... Respondent

C.R.P.No.506 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another.... Petitioners And Pittala Sunitha .... Respondent C.R.P.No.508 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another.... Petitioners And Avula Bhargavi .... Respondent C.R.P.No.517 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another .... Petitioners And C.M.Manohar Reddy .... Respondent C.R.P.No.521 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another .... Petitioners And Busakanti Parthasaradhi .... Respondent C.R.P.No.523 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another.... Petitioners And Elugoti Saraswathamma .... Respondent C.R.P.No.524 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another .... Petitioners And Sirigiri Adinarayana Reddy .... Respondent

C.R.P.No.543 of 2021 Between:-

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another .... Petitioners And

1.Gudipati Rami Reddy(died) by his LRs

2.Gudipati Subbalakshmamma and 3 others .... Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.B.S.Reddy

Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.V.R.Reddy Kovvuri

COMMON ORDER:

As the issue involved in this batch of Civil Revision Petitions is

identical, the same are disposed of by this Common Order.

2. The petitioners in all these cases are the Judgment debtors. The

respective respondents/Decree holders/plaintiffs filed individual suits seeking

refund of advance amount paid pursuant to different Agreements of Sale

executed in their favour by the petitioners/Judgment debtors, which were

decreed on different dates. The petitioners preferred appeals against the

Judgments and also moved stay petitions. The respondents/Decree holders

filed petitions seeking Execution of their respective decrees under Order XXI,

Rules 54 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure(for short 'CPC'). The details

of date of decrees, date of filing of Execution Petitions( for short 'E.Ps'.) and

date of attachment orders passed thereon by the Executing Court, for ready

reference is tabulated below:

Sl. CRP.No. O.S.No. Date of E.P.No. Date of Date of No. Decree Filing EP Attachment order in EP

1. 335/2021 086/2014 29-10-2018 15/2021 19-01-2021 23-01-2021 2. 431/2021 069/2014 31-10-2018 13/2021 18-01-2021 25-01-2021 3. 435/2021 046/2014 29-10-2018 21/2021 18-01-2021 23-01-2021 4. 439/2021 064/2014 29-10-2018 09/2021 18-01-2021 02-02-2021 5. 440/2021 017/2014 31-10-2018 10/2021 18-01-2021 02-02-2021 6. 443/2021 388/2013 29-10-2018 17/2021 18-01-2021 23-01-2021 7. 412/2021 394/2013 29-10-2018 18/2021 18-01-2021 23-01-2021 8. 453/2021 386/2013 29-10-2018 14/2021 18-01-2021 25-01-2021 9. 455/2021 396/2013 29-10-2018 16/2021 18-01-2021 23-01-2021 10. 467/2021 067/2014 31-10-2018 08/2021 18-01-2021 02-02-2021 11. 486/2021 392/2013 29-10-2018 20/2021 18-01-2021 23-01-2021 12. 506/2021 066/2014 29-10-2018 23/2021 18-01-2021 23-01-2021 13. 508/2021 071/2014 31-10-2018 31/2021 18-01-2021 03-02-2021 14. 517/2021 072/2014 29-10-2018 12/2021 18-01-2021 25-01-2021 15. 521/2021 393/2013 31-10-2018 19/2021 18-01-2021 23-01-2021 16. 523/2021 395/2013 31-10-2018 11/2021 18-01-2021 02-02-2021 17. 543/2021 018/2014 29-10-2018 32/2021 25-01-2021 03-02-2021 18. 524/2021 397/2013 31-10-2018 22/2021 18-01-2021 23-01-2021

3. It may be noted here that along with the Execution Petitions, a note

was appended by the counsel for respondents/Decree holders stating that in

view of the Order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ

Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, issuance of notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of

CPC is not necessary. The same was reiterated in the affidavit filed in

support of the Execution Petitions. The learned Executing Court considering

the note appended to the Execution Petitions and averments in the affidavit

in support of the E.Ps., issued notice under Rule 54 of CPC, on payment of

process.

4. Aggrieved by the said docket orders, the above said batch of Civil

Revision Petitions came to be filed.

5. Heard Mr. B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for the Revision

Petitioners/Judgment debtors and Mr.V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for

the respondents/Decree holders.

6. Referring to the lead case C.R.P.No.335 of 2021, the learned counsel

for the petitioners/Judgment debtors contends that the O.S.No.86 of 2014

was decreed against the petitioners on 29.10.2018 and the E.P., was filed on

23.01.2021 i.e., two years after passing of the decree and therefore, notice

is mandatory in terms of Order XXI, Rule 22 of CPC. He submits that no

notice, was issued to the petitioners/Judgment debtors and therefore, the

Orders under Revision are liable to be set aside on that ground. He would

further submit that Order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ

Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, had no application to the case on hand and the

limitation for filing of Execution Petitions under Article 136 of the Limitation

Act i.e., 12 years only would stand extended by virtue of the said Order.

According to the learned counsel, the said Order extends period of limitation

for filing suits, appeals etc., but would not apply to the Execution Petitions

and the issuance of notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 CPC being a mandatory

procedure, cannot be dispensed with under the guise of the Orders of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court. He also submits that the value of one Acre is

running into crores and the learned Executing Court mechanically attached

the entire property of Ac.32.00 and on that ground also the Orders under

Revision are liable to be set aside.

7. Relying on the decisions in M.Sheelamma(died per L.Rs) and

Others v. B.Albert and Another1 and P.Jayantha Rao and Another v.

V.Venkateswarlu2 , the learned counsel prays that the Revision Petitions

may be allowed, by setting aside the impugned orders.

8. The learned counsel for the respondents/Decree holders, on the other

hand, supported the impugned orders, inter alia, contending that the same

suffers from no infirmity or illegality. He contends that by virtue of the

Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020, period of limitation

stands extended in respect of Execution Proceedings also, E.Ps., as filed are

therefore within two years and hence no notice is required. He also submits

that the Revision Petitions are not maintainable and places reliance on the

decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench in K.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad

and Ors., v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd., 3 . Making the said

submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the Revision Petitions.

9. Considering the submissions made and perusing the material on

record, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is "Whether the

Orders under Revision are not sustainable for non-compliance with the

provisions of the Order XXI, Rule 22 of CPC and the same are liable to be

set aside?"

2006(2) ALD 574

(2002) 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 200

2019(1) ALD 682

10. For the purpose of adjudicating the point for consideration, it may be

appropriate to reproduce the relevant Orders of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, dated 23.03.2020 passed in

the wake of outspread of Covid-19:

"This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws(both Central and/or State).

To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f, 15th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings."

11. It is also appropriate to extract the Order dated 08.03.2021 in Suo

Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, which reads thus:

1. In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period

of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

2. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

3. The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

12. In the lead case, suit was decreed on 29.10.2018. Execution Petition

ought to have been filed within two years i.e. by 28.10.2020. However,

Execution Petition was filed on 19.01.2021. Be that as it may. From a

reading of the Order of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred supra, it is evident

that period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 stands excluded.

Further, where limitation would have expired during the period between

15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of

limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days

from 15.03.2021. The order of the Hon'ble Apex Court is clear and

unambiguous.

13. Going by the Orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the same are

applicable even to petitions/applications/all other proceedings also and not

restricted to suits and appeals. Execution Petition being a proceeding

pursuant to the decree and the E.P. filed on 19-01-2021 during the extended

period of limitation, in the considered opinion of this Court, falls within two

years period and as such, no notice is necessary under Rule 22 of CPC.

14. The argument of the learned counsel for revision petitioners that to

initiate the Execution Proceedings, limitation prescribed under Article 136 of

the Limitation Act is 12 years and by virtue of Hon'ble Supreme Court Order,

Execution Petition can be filed after 12 years, merits no appreciation, in the

attending facts and circumstances. Though, there is no dispute with regard

to the legal position in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the

petitioners, but in the light of the peculiar state of affairs due to outbreak of

Covid-19 and the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to supra, the

same are of no aid to the petitioners. The period of limitation, even if it is

computed in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court,

demonstrates that execution petitions are filed within time. The contentions

of the learned counsel for the petitioners are therefore, rejected and the

point is answered accordingly against the petitioners.

15. So far as maintainability of Revision Petitions, an identical issue was

dealt with by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K.Siva

Ramakrishna Prasad's case. The Hon'ble Division Bench concluded that

an attachment order under Order XXI, Rule 54 of CPC, is a step towards sale

of the property after filing sale papers, encumbrance certificate etc., and will

not terminate the proceedings finally. Referring to the judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of

Gujarat4, the Division Bench held that Civil Revision Petition under Section

115 of CPC is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the revision.

16. In the light of the legal position in K.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad's

case and the conclusions arrived at supra, the Revision Petitions fails and

the same are therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision

Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand

closed.

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Date: 11.10.2022

BLV

AIR 1968 SC 733

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.335, 412, 431, 435, 439, 440, 443, 453, 455, 467, 486, 506, 508, 517, 521, 523, 524 and 543 of 2021

Date: 11.10.2022

BLV