P.Sahadeva Reddy vs M.Krishna Reddy
2024 Latest Caselaw 8853 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

P.Sahadeva Reddy vs M.Krishna Reddy on 24 September, 2024

 APHC010503482023
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
                                   AT AMARAVATI                           [3311]
                            (Special Original Jurisdiction)

          TUESDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
                TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

                                    PRESENT

             THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI

                    CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2933/2023

Between:

P.sahadeva Reddy                                                  ...PETITIONER

                                       AND

M Krishna Reddy and Others                                  ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. KARANAM VASANTHA KUMAR

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following Order:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order dated 10.07.2023 in I.A.No.103 of 2022 in O.S.No.05 of 2018 on the file of the court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kurnool, filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 and Section 151 of C.P.C to order attachment before judgment of petition schedule property of respondent No.1 by way of pro-order.

02. The revision petitioner/plaintiff filed suit against the respondents No.1 and 2/defendantsNo.1 and 2 basing on 15 promissory notes said to have been executed by the 1st respondent in favour of the 2nd respondent, in turn transferred them to the petitioner/plaintiff. The 1st respondent having appeared

through counsel has not filed counter. Notice was served on the 2 nd respondent; however he remained ex-parte before the trial Court.

03. After hearing both parties, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court observing that no proof was filed by the petitioner to establish that the schedule property belongs to the 1st respondent, except filing affidavit in support of the petition.

04. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the schedule property is a joint family property of the 1st respondent, but the same was kept in the name of his wife by executing a gift deed and therefore, it is liable for attachment. Again, this is an oral saying across the bench that without there being any pleading to that effect. In spite of dismissal of petition before the trial Court on the ground that there is no proof that the property belongs to the 1st respondent, the petitioner has not chosen to file any proof of any kind. Thus, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the order impugned in the revision petition.

05. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed.

No costs.

Pending Miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

___________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date: 24.09.2024.

NSM

HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2933/2023

Date:24.09.2024.

NSM