Telangana High Court
Chimmaata Saidaiah, Nalgonda ... vs Boddupally Naresh, Nalgonda Dist ... on 4 July, 2022
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
C.R.P.No.3766 of 2015
ORDER
Learned counsel for the petitioner present.
Though notices are served on the respondents,
they have not turned up.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner.
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the
order dated 14.07.2015 passed in E.A.No.5 of 2015 in
E.P.No.5 of 2014 in O.S.No.53 of 2013 on the file of the
Principal District Judge, Nalgonda.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
stated that the petitioner filed E.A.No.5 of 2015 before
the trial court under Order XXI Rule 26 read with
Section 151 of CPC for stay of all further proceedings
in the Execution Petition till disposal of the petition
filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC. He stated that he
is the owner and possessor of 445 sq. yards situated at
Shantinagar Locality, Nalgonda Town and he came to
know through paper publication dated 20.01.2015 that
the said property was put to open auction on
23.02.2015 by the Court to realise the decretal amount
in O.S.No.53 of 2013 against the judgment debtor viz.,
Chityal Venkanna, but the decree holder has no right
to put the property in an open auction, as he is the
owner and possessor of the property by virtue of decree
in O.S.No.205 of 2013.
In the counter filed by the respondent/decree
holder in the said petition, it was stated that the
petitioner in collusion with the judgment debtor
created a sale agreement dated 30.07.2009, as such,
the trial court granted stay on furnishing security for
1/3rd of the value of the property claimed under the
petition on or before 27.07.2015, failing which, the
petition stands dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Civil Revision Petition is filed.
The petitioner stated that he is a claim petitioner
and not a judgment debtor. He purchased the said
property from the 2nd respondent under the agreement
of sale dated 30.07.2009, as such he filed an
application under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC. He also
stated that O.S.No.205 of 2013 is filed for specific
performance, which was decreed on 05.09.2013 and
registered Sale Deed was executed in his favour on
18.11.2013. O.S.No.53 of 2013 is filed for recovery of
money basing on the promissory note and he is not a
party to the said proceedings, but his property was
attached as such, he filed an application for stay, but
the trial court erred in directing him to furnish
security of 1/3rd value of the property. He also stated
that the daily status of the trial Court, in which
E.P.No.5 of 2014 was closed on 06.02.2020. It was
also observed that C.R.P.No.3766 of 2015 is pending
on the file and the attachment ordered on 24.04.2013
in respect of EP schedule property shall continue and
in force till further orders.
The respondents have not turned up in spite of
serving notices on the respondents. The petitioner
stated that he is a subsequent purchaser and he is no
way concerned with the suit for recovery of the
amount, but his property was attached erroneously.
Considering the arguments of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, this Court finds that the order of the
trial Court is not on proper appreciation of facts and it
has to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed
setting aside the order of the trial Court. No costs.
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall
stand closed.
___________________
P. SREE SUDHA, J
Date: 04.07.2022
Prv
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA
S.A.No.1144 of 2013
15.02.2022
Prv
