Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Abdul Kareem vs Mathi Cornelious Alexander, on 23 February, 2023
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
MAIN CASE No: C.R.P.No.1772 of 2022
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE.
03 23-02-2023 RC,J
C.R.P.No.1772 of 2022
The learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the personal notice sent to the
respondent was served on him and the
acknowledgment received was filed along with
proof of service memo vide USR No.89452 of
2022. The proof of service memo shows that the
notice sent to the respondent was served on him.
Despite the same, the respondent did not choose
to enter his appearance.
Post on 09.03.2023.
_______
RC,J
I.A.No.1 of 2022
Sri G. Rama Gopal, learned counsel for the
petitioner, submitted that the suit filed by the
respondent/ plaintiff vide O.S.No.528 of 2014 for
eviction was decreed on 25.07.2019. As against
the same, the petitioner preferred appeal vide
A.S.No.269 of 2019 on the file of the learned XII
Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam and
along with the same he filed I.A.No.770 of 2019
for stay of execution of the decree pending
appeal but the said application was dismissed
directing both the parties to get ready in the
appeal. The respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.115
of 2021 for execution of the decree in O.S.No.528
of 2014 seeking eviction of the petitioner from
the schedule property, wherein the petitioner
filed E.A.No.29 of 2021 seeking stay of execution
of the decree, but the executing court
erroneously dismissed the said E.A.No.29 of
2021. Further, the executing court allowed the
E.A.Nos.26, 27 and 28 of 2021 filed by the
respondent/ D.Hr. for police aid, break open the
locks and blank arrest warrant for removal of
persons whoever obstructs during the course of
the execution of delivery warrant, without
considering the fact that the decree sought to be
executed by the respondent/plaintiff was
challenged in appeal before the appellate court
and the said appeal is pending. Aggrieved by the
same, the present revision has been preferred.
The learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the petitioner has got good
and fair chances of succeeding the appeal in
A.S.No.269 of 2019 and if the petitioner is evicted
from the schedule property pending disposal of
the appeal, in the event if the appeal is allowed,
the petitioner will have to again initiate
proceedings for restoration of the property. The
learned counsel would further submit that the
petitioner/J.Dr. is running business in the
schedule premises and hence the question of
ordering break open the locks is highly
unsustainable. The petitioner has got fair chances
of succeeding in the revision and in the
meantime, the petitioner is evicted from the
schedule property, the very purpose of filing the
appeal as well as this revision would be defeated.
Hence, prayed to stay all further proceedings in
E.P.No.115 of 2021 in O.S.No.528 of 2014 on the
file of the Court of the learned IV Additional
Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, pending
disposal of the revision petition.
Perused the order impugned in this
revision petition. Though the respondent was
served with notice, he did not choose to enter his
appearance. The contents of the petition as well
as the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner shows that, assailing the decree
and judgment passed in O.S.No.528 of 2014 the
petitioner preferred appeal in A.S.No.269 of 2019
and the same is pending on the file of the Court
of the learned XII Additional District Judge,
Visakhapatnam. The petition filed by the
petitioner seeking stay of operation of the decree
appealed against was dismissed by the appellate
Court. As rightly contended by the learned
counsel for the petitioner, dispossession of the
petitioner from the schedule property during
pendency of the appeal would lead to multiplicity
of proceedings in case the appeal is allowed.
The submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner and the grounds raised
in this revision petition prima facie makes out a
point for consideration to be decided in this
revision petition.
In view of the above, there shall be interim
stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.115 of
2021 in O.S.No.528 of 2014 on the file of the
Court of the IV Additional Senior Civil Judge,
Visakhapatnam for a period of four (04) weeks.
_______
RC,J
RR
