Telangana High Court
Korivi Amarnath Yadav vs Mohd.Mehboob on 9 December, 2022
Bench: A.Venkateshwara Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY
C.R.P.No.2406 of 2022
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order
dated 24.12.2021 in E.A.No.99 of 2021 in E.P.No.48 of
2017 in O.S.No.19 of 2016 on the file of the learned IX
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.
2. E.A.No.99 of 2021 in E.P.No.48 of 2017 was
filed by the judgment debtor/defendant in O.S.No.19 of
2016 to stay the operation of the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.19 of 2016. The trial Court has dismissed the said
application holding that earlier in E.A.No.33 of 2016
similar plea was taken by the judgment debtor and the
Court having considered all these aspects, permitted the
decree holder to deposit the balance sale consideration
amount to the credit of the suit for execution of the sale
deed within 15 days. The said orders in E.A.No.33 of 2016
were confirmed by this Court in CRP No.1134 of 2017 filed
by the judgment debtor to revise the said orders and the
AVR,J
CRP No.2406 of 2022
record does not speak anything that the executing Court
had acted beyond the decree.
3. The original suit in OS No.19 of 2016 was filed
for specific performance of suit agreement of sale and it
was decreed on 18.04.2016 directing the defendant to
execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of
the suit schedule property therein on receiving the balance
sale consideration of Rs.1.10 crores on or before
15.07.2016. Thereupon, the defendant shall execute the
sale deed and hand over the vacant possession of the suit
schedule property all that house bearing No.16-1-2
(corresponding to new municipal No.161-3/1/A) consisting
of ground and first floor admeasuring 600 square yards
situated at Saidabad, Hyderabad.
4. Thus, the judgment debtor is suffering a decree
in OS No.19 of 2016, however, it appears that the plaintiff
has failed to deposit the balance sale consideration of
Rs.1.10 crores within the stipulated time and the trial
Court has considered the request for extension of time and
as per the orders in E.A.No.33 of 2016 time for deposit of
AVR,J
CRP No.2406 of 2022
the balance sale consideration was extended. The said
orders in E.A.No.33 of 2016 were challenged by the
judgment debtor/defendant in CRP No.1134 of 2017
wherein this Court has confirmed the orders. Accordingly,
the orders in E.A.No.33 of 2016 have attained finality.
Thereafter, the plaintiff in OS No.19 of 2016 has deposited
the balance sale consideration and filed execution petition
in E.P.No.48 of 2017 seeking for execution of the registered
sale deed.
5. At this stage, again on the very same plea that
was raised in E.A.No.33 of 2016, the present application in
E.A.No.99 of 2021 was filed and the trial Court as per the
impugned order dated 24.12.2021 has dismissed the said
E.A.No.99 of 2021 as devoid of merits stating that there are
no merits to stay the E.P. proceedings.
6. Therefore, on overall consideration of the facts
and circumstances of the case as discussed above, I do not
find any infirmity in the order impugned, it does not
warrant interference of this Court. Be it stated that the
trial Court on being satisfied that the decree holder has
AVR,J
CRP No.2406 of 2022
made arrangement for payment of stamp duty, registration
fee and also obtained demand draft in favour of the
concerned authorities has allowed E.A.No.33 of 2016,
which was confirmed by this Court in CRP No.1134 of
2017 and the judgment debtor is not entitled to raise
similar plea at this stage in E.A.No.99 of 2021 to stall the
proceedings in E.P.No.48 of 2017. Accordingly, the order
impugned is sustained.
7. In the result, the civil revision petition is
dismissed as devoid of merits. However, in the
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to
costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, if any
pending in this civil revision petition, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
A. VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J.
Date: 09.12.2022
Isn
