Telangana High Court
State Bank Of India vs G.P. Veerabhadram Died on 21 January, 2022
Bench: Ujjal Bhuyan
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
****
C.R.P.No.107 of 2022
Between:
State Bank of India
Petitioner
VERSUS
G.P. Veerabhadram (died) per L.Rs
Smt. Bhavani Annapurna & 3 Others.
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 21.01.2022
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgments? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
____________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, J
2
* HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
+ C.R.P.No.107 of 2022
% 21.01.2022
# Between:
State Bank of India
Petitioner
VERSUS
G.P. Veerabhadram (died) per L.Rs
Smt. Bhavani Annapurna & 3 Others.
Respondents
! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri Mr.M.Narender Reddy
^ Counsel for the respondents : Sri A. Ravi Babu
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
1
AIR 1965 AP 215
3
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
C.R.P.No.107 OF 2022
ORDER:
Heard Mr.M.Narender Reddy, learned counsel for the
revision petitioner.
2 This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of
the Constitution of India, challenging the legality and validity
of the order dated 26.11.2021 passed by the learned II
Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in
E.P.No.17of 2012 in Arbitration Claim No.4 of 1993.
3 Relevant facts may be briefly stated.
4 G.P.Veerabhadram was a member of State Bank of India
Supervising Staff Co-operative House Building Society
Limited, Hyderabad since the year 1987. He had applied for
allotment of a plot of land in his favour. But State Bank of
India Supervising Staff Co-operative House Building Society
Limited (briefly referred to as 'the Society' hereinafter)
declined to allot such a plot. As a result, G.P.Veerabhadram
filed a dispute before the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative
Societies (Housing), Hyderabad under Section 61 of the
Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964, which was
registered as ARC No.4 of 1993. It was contested by the
Society whereafter, the Deputy Registrar passed the award
dated 28.02.1994 holding that G.P.Veerabhadram was a
member of the Society and therefore he was entitled to a plot
of land from amongst the available plots of land.
Consequently, the Society was directed to allot a plot of land
to G.P.Veerabhadram at the same rate at which plots of land
were allotted to other members of the Society.
5 Aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated 28.02.1994, the
Society preferred an appeal before the Cooperative Tribunal at
Hyderabad, which was registered as CTA No.2 of 1994. By
the judgment and order dated 28.11.1995, the Cooperative
Tribunal dismissed the appeal. It was specifically held by the
Cooperative Tribunal that G.P.Veerabhadram was a member
of the Society since 05.01.1981. It was further held that he
was entitled to a plot of land at the market rate that was
prevailing in that locality as on 05.01.1981.
6 The Society thereafter filed a writ petition before this
Court assailing the order of the Cooperative Tribunal
affirming the award. The writ petition was registered as
W.P.No.9652 of 1996. By the judgment and order dated
27.11.1996, this Court did not find any ground to interfere
and accordingly dismissed the writ petition at the admission
stage itself.
7 In the meanwhile, the decree holder -
G.P.Veerabhadram expired. Thereafter, his legal heirs i.e.
wife, two sons and daughter filed Execution Petition No.1 of
2008 before the II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court,
Hyderabad for execution of the award dated 28.02.1994. By
the order dated 11.02.2011, Execution Petition No.1 of 2008
was dismissed on the ground that no certificate issued by the
Registrar of Cooperative Societies under Section 70A of the
A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was filed along with the
execution petition. It was held that mere filing copy of the
award was not sufficient; the related certificate was required
to be filed.
8 Aggrieved by the above order dated 11.02.2011, the
decree holders (legal heirs of late G.P.Veerabhadram) filed
Civil Revision Petition before this Court, which was registered
as CRP No.3663 of 2011. By the order dated 19.01.2012, this
Court held that filing of certificate along with the execution
petition was a necessary requirement under Section 70A of
the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Execution
petitioners had failed to file such a certificate. Therefore,
learned Court below had rightly dismissed the execution
petition. As such, this Court declined to interfere with the
order dated 11.02.2011. However, liberty was granted to the
execution petitioners to file a fresh execution petition by
enclosing such a certificate. It was clarified that if such an
execution petition was filed, Court below should entertain and
dispose of the same on merit after allowing the respondent to
contest the execution petition on all legally permissible
grounds.
9 Thereafter, decree holders filed the related execution
petition before the learned Court below, which was registered
as E.P.No.17 of 2012 by enclosing therewith the required
certificate. The same was contested by the revision petitioner.
However, learned Court below, by the order dated
26.11.2021, allowed the execution petition and directed the
judgment debtor to allot one plot of land to the decree holders
being the legal heirs of the deceased decree holder
G.P.Veerabhadram at the market rate that was prevailing in
that locality as on 05.01.1981 within 30 days.
10 Revision petitioners in their counter affidavit to the
execution petition filed by the decree holders had raised two
objections; firstly, the execution petition was barred by
limitation; and secondly, the certificate issued by the
Registrar (Housing) under Section 70A of the A.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1964, which was annexed to the execution
petition was a fabricated one.
11 Insofar the first objection is concerned, it is the
contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
related execution petition for execution of the award dated
28.02.1994 was filed after a lapse of 12 years. Therefore, the
execution petition was barred by limitation.
12 Learned Court below took the view that the date of the
award is 28.02.1994. On being appealed against by the
Society, the above award was affirmed by the appellate order
dated 28.11.1995, whereby the appeal filed by the Society
was dismissed. When this was challenged by the Society
before this Court in Writ Petition No.9652 of 1996, the same
was also dismissed, vide order dated 27.11.1996. Therefore,
learned Court below held that by application of the doctrine of
merger, the original award stood merged with order of this
Court dated 27.11.1996. As a result, the limitation of 12
years would commence from 28.11.1996 which would mean
that the execution petition would have to be filed on or before
27.11.2008. E.P.No.1 of 2008 was filed on 07.11.2007 i.e.,
within 12 years from the order of this Court dated
27.11.1996. E.P.No.1 of 2008 was dismissed on 11.02.2011
on the ground that the related certificate under Section 70A
of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 was not annexed
to the execution petition. Aggrieved by this, the decree
holders filed CRP No.3663 of 2011 before this Court. Though
this Court declined to interfere in the matter, nonetheless,
liberty was granted to the decree holders to file a fresh
execution petition by enclosing the relevant certificate. It was
thereafter that Execution Petition No.17 of 2012 was filed on
03.12.2012 enclosing therewith the certificate under Section
70A of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964. Learned
Court below took the view that the related execution petition
was a continuation of the earlier execution petition and
therefore it was held that the execution petition was filed
within the period of limitation. Finding of the learned Court
below on this issue is as under:
13. In view of the above referred two decisions submitted
by the learned counsel for the Decree Holders, the execution
date starts from 28.11.1996 i.e. after dismissal of W.P.No.9652
of 1996.
14. The Decree Holders filed EP No.1 of 2008 on 7.11.2007
i.e. within 12 years from the dismissal of W.P.No.9652 of 1996.
15. The EP No.1 of 2008 was dismissed by this Court on
11.2.2011, aggrieved by the same, the Decree Holders preferred
CRP No.3663 of 2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of A.P., the
same was allowed on 19.1.2012 by giving liberty to the Decree
Holders to file fresh EP by enclosing the certificate under Section
70-A of APCS Act, 1964.
16. The present Execution Petition is filed on 3.2.2012
along with the certificate under Section 70-A of APCS Act.
17. As such, the present Execution Petition is continuation
to the earlier Execution Petition No.1 of 2008 by virtue of orders
dated 19.1.2012 in CRP No.3663 of 2011 on the file of Hon'ble
High Court of A.P.
18. In view of the above said discussions, this Court is of
the opinion that the present Execution Petition is filed by the
Decree Holders within the period of limitation as continuation to
the Execution Petition No.1 of 2008. Accordingly, the point No.1i
is answered against the Judgment Debtor and in favour of the
Decree Holders.
13 At this stage, we may refer to the order of this Court
dated 19.01.2012 in CRP No.3663 of 2011. Relevant portion
of the said order reads as under:
6. Accordingly, while declining to interfere with the said
order, liberty is however given to the petitioners to file a fresh
execution petition by enclosing a certificate. If such an
execution petition is filed, the Court below shall entertain and
dispose of the same on merits after allowing the respondent to
contest the execution petition on all legally permissible
grounds."
14 From a reading of the order of this Court as extracted
above, it is evident that this Court had granted liberty to the
decree holders to file a fresh execution petition by enclosing
the certificate under Section 70-A of the A.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1964. It was directed that if such an execution
petition was filed, the executing Court would entertain and
dispose of such execution petition on merit after allowing the
respondent (J.Dr) to contest the execution petition on all
legally permissible grounds.
15 Viewed in the above context, this Court finds no error or
infirmity in the view taken by the learned Court below.
Learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner has referred
to a decision of this Court in the case of KUMMATHI
NARAYANAPPA Vs. TALARI AKKUKAPPA1 to contend that
E.P.No.17 of 2012 was a fresh execution petition and could
not have been construed to be a continuation of the earlier
execution petition being E.P.No.1 of 2008 which suffered from
material irregularity. I am afraid, acceding to such a
contention raised would result in distortion of applicable legal
provisions and would cause grave injustice to the decree
holders. In the facts and circumstances of the case, learned
Court below had rightly held the fresh execution petition as a
continuation of the earlier one inasmuch as the earlier one
was not adjudicated on merit. Interference was declined in
view of failure of the decree holders to place on record the
relevant certificate. As a matter of fact, the executing Court
could have either returned the execution petition for filing
afresh in accordance with Section 70A of the A.P. Cooperative
Societies Act, 1964 or given an opportunity to the decree
AIR 1965 AP 215
holders to bring such certificate on record. However, in
revision this Court granted liberty to the decree holders to file
a fresh execution petition by enclosing such a certificate and
in the event such an execution petition was filed, the
executing Court was directed to entertain and dispose of the
same on merit. In the light of such a direction of this Court,
learned Court below adopted the correct approach and no
fault can be found with such an approach. The approach of
the learned Court below is certainly a justice oriented
approach. The decree holders are yet to enjoy the fruits of the
litigation initiated by their father/husband though they had
succeeded at each and every stage of the litigation, the date of
the award being 28.02.1994. We are now in 2022. Almost 28
years have gone by without the decree being executed.
16 It must always be remembered that rules and
procedures are the handmaid of justice. Insistence on rules
and procedure cannot be at the cost of justice. Supreme
Court has held time and again that procedure is meant to
further the ends of justice and is not a thing designed to trip
people up. Courts must always adopt that interpretation of
the rules and procedure which advances the cause of justice
and not which acts as an obstruction to justice.
17 Insofar the second objection raised by the petitioner i.e.
the genuineness of the certificate is concerned, the same has
been gone into by the learned Court below and rejected such
objection on the ground that the judgment debtor did not
place any material before the Court to discredit the
genuineness of the certificate.
18 Thus, upon thorough consideration of the matter, Court
is not inclined to entertain the present revision petition,
which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
20 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this revision
petition shall also stand dismissed.
____________________
UJJAL BHUYAN, J
Date: 21.01.2022
L.R. copy be marked.
B/o Kvsn
