Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Tangi Harinarayana, vs Baratam Shanmukha Rao, on 13 November, 2024
APHC010436402024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3331]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2303/2024
Between:
1. TANGI HARINARAYANA,, S/O MUSILI NAIDU, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, BUSINESS, R/O D.NO.47-10-17, VARANASI MAJESTIC,
1ST FLOOR, DWARAKANAGAR, 2ND LANE, VISAKHAPATNAM,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. BARATAM SHANMUKHA RAO, S/o Viswanadham, Aged about 58
years. Business, R/o D.No.12-9-13, B.Nivasam, Kaki Veedhi,
Srikakulam Town and District.
...RESPONDENT
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be
pleased to set aside the an order dated 22-07-2024 in E.P.No.49/2022 in
O.S.No.27 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge
(Senior Division), at Srikakulam, consequently dismiss the E.P.No.49 of 2022
in O.S.No.27/2020 and pass
IA NO: 1 OF 2024
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased
may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.49/2022 in
O.S.No.27/2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior
Page 2 of 4
Division), Srikakulam, pending disposal of the Main Revision Petition and to
pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. NARASIMHA RAO GUDISEVA
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.
The Court made the following:
ORDER
The Judgment Debtor filed the above revision against the order dated
22.07.2024 in E.P.No.49 of 2022 in O.S.No.27 of 2020 on the file of the
Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Srikakulam.
2. The respondent-Decree Holder filed suit O.S.No.27 of 2020 against the
revision petitioner herein for recovery of the amount. The revision petitioner
filed a written statement. The suit was referred to Lok Adalat and an award
was passed vide Lok Adalat Case No.638 of 2021 on 31.12.2021. As per the
award, the plaintiff agreed to receive Rs.25,00,000/- towards a full and final
settlement. The defendant agreed to pay the said amount on or before
31.03.2024 in two instalments. To that effect, the defendant issued two post-
dated cheques bearing Nos.240814 and 240815 dated 28.02.2022 and
28.03.2022, drawn on State Bank of Indian, NRI Branch, Visakhapatnam for
Rs.10,00,000/- and Rs.15,00,000/- respectively. As per the award, in case, the
cheques are dishonoured, the plaintiff is at liberty to file an execution petition
to recover the amount of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest @24% per annum etc.
The execution petition was filed in June 2022 under Order XXI Rules 54, 64&
66 of CPC. The executing Court by order dated 22.07.2024 made the
attachment absolute and issued notice under Rule 64 of CPC. Against the
said order, the present revision is filed.
3. Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the execution
petition was filed beyond two years from the date of award and hence, without
ordering notice under Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC, attaching the property is
illegal. He would also submit that as per the terms of the award of Lok Adalat,
the decree-holder ought not to have filed E.P. He would submit that the
executing Court wrongly attached the property.
5. Now the point for consideration is:
Whether the order dated 22.07.2024 in E.P.No.49 of 2022 in
O.S.No.27 of 2020 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Senior
Division), Srikakulam suffer from any illegality and irregularity
warranting interference of this Court?
6. As seen from the material paper filed along with the revision petition,
the respondent-plaintiff filed suit O.S.No.27 of 2020 for recovery of the
amount. After filing a written statement by the defendant, the suit was referred
to Lok Adalat. An award dated 31.12.2021 in Lok Adalat Case No.638 of 2021
was passed. The terms of compromise of the award reads thus:
i) that the plaintiff agreed to receive an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees
twenty five lakhs only) towards full and final settlement of the suit claim and
the rest of the suit claim given up by the plaintiff;
ii) that the defendant agreed to pay the said amount on or before 31.03.2022 in
two installments and to that effect, the defendant issued two post dated
cheques bearing Nos.240814 & 240815 dated 28.02.2022 & 28.03.2022
drawn on State Bank of India, NRI Branch, Visakhapatnam for Rs.10,00,000/-
(Rupees ten lakhs only) and Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lakhs only)
respectively and the plaintiff received said cheques;
iii) that the defendant agreed that if the said cheques are dishonoured, the
plaintiff is at liberty to file execution petition to recover the above said amount
of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) with interest @ 24% per
annum from the date of filing of suit dt:11.03.2020 to till the date of realization
with costs;
7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the execution
petition filed beyond two years falls to ground, since the date of award is
31.12.2021 and the execution petition was filed in June, 2022. The executing
Court followed the procedure and attached the property.
8. This Court does not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by
the Court below warranting interference by this Court under Section 115 of
CPC. Hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.
9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is Dismissed. No order as to
costs.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand
closed.
_____________________
SUBBA REDDY SATTI, J
PVD
