Mohd Abu Sayeed vs Gulam Murtuza
2021 Latest Caselaw 4543 Tel

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY

                        CRP No.1458 of 2014

ORDER:

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the

Civil Procedure Code assailing the order dated 09.05.2014 in E.P.

No.211 of 2013 in OS No.678 of 2012 on the file of the learned VII

Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner. The

respondents called absent and there is no representation on their

behalf.

3. As per the grounds of revision, it is alleged that the vacation

Court ought not to have permitted the first respondent to approach the

vacation Court for the purpose of executing the decree. In fact, though

the decree was obtained in the year 2013, the first respondent waited

till 2014 vacation and moved the application. The vacation Court

could have seen that the respondents have colluded with each other

and moved the matter before the vacation Court, accordingly,

questioned the order dated 09.05.2014.

4. On perusal of the material available on record, the learned

Vacation Court has issued warrant to the bailiff for delivery of

possession in Form-11 under Order-XXI, Rule-35 CPC. The civil

vacation benches are constituted by this Court as per Civil Courts Act,

1972 and there is no bar or prohibition for the vacation Court in taking

AVRJ CRP No.1458 of 2014

up the execution petitions. Accordingly, the Civil Vacation Court has

rightly issued Warrant in Form-11 at page No.3 for delivery of

possession. The original suit No.678 of 2012 was filed for declaration

of title, recovery of possession and future mesne profits by the

plaintiff, the defendant remained absent and she was set ex parte.

5. After obtaining the judgment and decree, on 04.01.2013 the

plaintiff/decree holder has filed the E.P. within two years and obtained

the order for delivery of possession of E.P. schedule property. Merely

because the E.P. was filed during summer vacation on 09.05.2014

within two years of the decree and the Vacation Civil Judge has

ordered for recovery of possession in terms of the judgment and

decree dated 04.01.2013, it cannot be said that there was collusion

between the parties or that the Vacation Civil Judge prohibited from

entertaining any such applications which are of urgent in nature.

6. The present civil revision petition is not filed by the parties to

the suit, but a third party has filed it. It is not explained by the

revision petitioner/3rd party as to how he is concerned with the E.P.

schedule property and if he has any such grievance, what made him

not to approach the Court below to ventilate his grievance in the

execution proceedings. Therefore, I find no jurisdictional error

committed by the Court below in issuing the warrant for delivery of

possession in terms of the judgment and decree in OS No.678 of 2012.

AVRJ CRP No.1458 of 2014

7. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs.

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending in this revision petition

shall stand closed.

_______________________________ A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.

Date: 22.12.2021 Isn