Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Vazeer vs Sayyad Khasim Bi on 20 February, 2023
Bench: K Manmadha Rao
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.7505 of 2018
ORDER :
This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners
against the Order and decree, dated 10.12.2018 passed in
E.P.No.26 of 2016 in O.S No.98 of 2007 on the file of the
Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tenali.
2. The said E.P. No.26 of 2016 was filed by the
petitioners seeking to declare them and the respondent
Nos.2 and 7 are the absolute owners of the petition 'C'
schedule property by restricting the decree in O.S No.98 of
2007, dated 01.05.2012 to an extent of 906 2/3 square
links.
3. Heard Sri Shafath Ahmedkhan, learned counsel
appearing for the petitioners and Sri V.S.R. Anjaneyulu,
learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.
4. The O.S.No.98 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff for
declaration that he is the absolute owner of the plaint
schedule property and consequential relief of possession of
plaint schedule property. The same was disposed of on
01.05.2012. Aggrieved by the same, A.S.No.72 of 2014 was
preferred before the court of XI Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Tenali and the same was dismissed on
07.01.2016 by confirming the judgment and decree of the
original Court. Being not satisfied wit the same, the SA
No.446 of 2016 was preferred before this Court and the
same is pending consideration. Interim order which was
granted by this Court has ben vacated vide order dated
5.9.2018 on the ground that even though the second
appellant passed away on 18.2.2014 and that the present
second appeal was filed after the death of the second
appellant as if he is alive on the date of filing of the second
appeal and that the vakalat filed on behalf of the appellants
show that the second appellant signed on Vakalatnama on
14.6.2016. it appears that the interims order in that case
was obtained on 16.6.2016 by suppressing the material
facts, particularly the death of the second appellant.
5. This Court observed that after vacating the interim
orders, the aforesaid E.P. has been filed by the Decree
Holders to execute the decree and warrant of delivery has
been issued and the same has been obstructed and
subsequently the claim petition filed along with the said
application under Order XXI Rule26 read with 151 CPC
which is also coming along with the EP for grant of stay of
execution of decree. It is also observed that already the
second appeal is pending for consideration and the
petitioners can agitate their grievance before this Court by
impleading them as parties to the said S.A and filing of this
claim petition before Executing Court is not tenable. There
is no prima facie case for the petitioners/claimants and they
have filed the claim petition only to drag on the matter and
that the decree could not be executed for their selfish ends.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below
has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners.
6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, this
Court finds no merit in the instant petition and the same is
liable to be dismissed.
7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is
dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to
avail the remedy of appeal under Section 96 of CPC against
the order of the Executing Court, duly availing the benefit of
Section 14 of the Limitation Act. There shall be no order as
to costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous
applications shall stand closed.
______________________________
DR. K. MANMADHA RAO, J.
Date : 20 -02-2023
Gvl
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K. MANMADHA RAO
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.7505 of 2018
Date : 20.02.2023
Gvl
