Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Unknown vs Section 115 Of Code Of Civil ... on 26 June, 2023
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3635 of 2019
ORDER:
Judgment Debtor filed this Civil Revision Petition under
Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.) questioning the
orders dated 08.07.2019 and 04.09.2019 of learned Senior Civil
Judge, Parchur, Prakasam District in E.P.No.15 of 2019 in
O.S.No.47 of 2013. By the said orders, the executing Court
ordered for delivery of the immovable property in favour of
decree holder/respondent herein.
2. O.S.No.47 of 2013 is a suit filed for declaration that the
plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule properties and for
consequential possession and for mesne profits and costs.
Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement.
During the progress of the trial, an amicable settlement was
struck between parties and the dispute got resolved through an
award passed by the Lok Adalat on 17.11.2018. The award
specifies certain amounts to be paid by defendant and certain
registrations are agreed to be made by defendant in favour of
the plaintiff. Timelines were prescribed and conditions were
recorded that in the event of failure on part of the defendant in
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.No.3635 of 2019
complying with the agreed terms what plaintiff could do was
also prescribed therein.
3. Alleging that judgment debtor failed to comply with the
award conditions, decree holder filed E.P.No.15 of 2019 under
Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C. seeking for delivery of E.P. schedule
mentioned properties. It is in the backdrop of these facts, the
impugned orders came to be passed. On 08.07.2019 the
executing Court ordered for delivery and posted the matter to
29.07.2019. On 04.09.2019 it recorded await for delivery
warrant. These are the two orders that are challenged in this
revision.
4. The principal ground urged in this revision is about
ordering delivery of property in favour of decree holder without
serving notice to judgment debtor. The certified copy of docket
proceedings filed before this Court through material papers does
indicate that the decree holder paid batta and a notice under
Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C. was served on judgment debtor on
24.07.2019. Thus, factually the contention that no notice was
issued is incorrect. The other contention raised therein indicate
about the mutual rights and obligations that arose out of Lok
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.No.3635 of 2019
Adalat award and about decree holder seeking for excess
execution of property and such other grounds.
5. On behalf of the respondent/decree holder, a counter
affidavit was filed. Referring to the copies of various subsequent
orders passed by the executing Court the learned counsel for
respondent/decree holder submits that subsequent to the
impugned orders dated 08.07.2019 and 04.09.2019 judgment
debtor made appearance, his counter was received, objections
were considered and in fact judgment debtor filed an execution
application and it went on for adjournments on several
occasions and finally by a reasoned order the executing Court
negatived the objections raised by the judgment debtor and
passed an order dated 26.11.2019 ordering for delivery of
property by issuing requisite warrant. A copy of the order is on
record. Correctness of it is not disputed by the learned counsel
for petitioner/judgment debtor. The above discussion makes it
very clear that subsequent to the impugned orders dated
08.07.2019 and 04.09.2019 opportunity of hearing was duly
granted to the judgment debtor and on merits an order for
delivery was passed by the executing Court on 26.11.2019. The
present civil revision petition is filed just a little earlier to it on
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.No.3635 of 2019
14.11.2019 by which time judgment debtor was really
participating in the enquiry before the executing Court. These
facts do indicate that the impugned orders became infructuous
as the executing Court gave full opportunity of hearing to
judgment debtor and by implication the impugned orders had
no relevance. For these reasons, the civil revision petition has
become infructuous.
6. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
_____________________________
Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J
Date: 26.06.2023
Ivd
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.No.3635 of 2019
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3635 of 2019
Date: 26.06.2023
Ivd
