Telangana High Court
G.Venkata Krishna Reddy And ... vs M/S Margadarsi Chit Fund P Ltd And 3 ... on 22 September, 2022
Bench: Chillakur Sumalatha
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1514 of 2022
ORDER:
Heard the submission of Sri R. Lakshmi Narasimha Rao,
learned counsel for the petitioners, as well as Sri P. Durga Prasad,
learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1-DHR.
2. Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order that is
rendered by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar, in E.P.No.44 of 2016 in O.S.No.129 of 2001, dated
04.04.2022.
3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the respect parties and
also on perusing the material that is produced, what could be
perceived by this Court is that an application was filed by
respondent No.1/Decree Holder seeking for attachment of
movable property, which belongs to the petitioners herein. The
petitioners are the Judgment Debtor Nos.1 and 2 in the Execution
Petition in question. The petitioners resisted the relief sought for
mainly on three grounds; firstly, that the A.P. Chit Fund Act,
1971 has no application to the case on hand; secondly, that
Dr. CSL,J
C.R.P.No.1514 of 2022
petitioner No.1/Judgment Debtor No.1 did not receive the entire
price amount; and thirdly, that petitioner No.1/Judgment Debtor
No.1 is not the owner of the house, which is shown in E.P.
schedule. Negativing all the three grounds, the Executing Court
over-ruled the objections taken. The findings given are assailed in
this Civil Revision Petition.
4. During the course of hearing, without going into the merits
of the case, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
respondent No.1/Decree Holder, subsequent to passing of
impugned order, moved an application under Order VI Rule 17
C.P.C. seeking for amendment of the E.P. schedule property and,
therefore, execution of the impugned order could not be taken till
disposal of the said Execution Application.
5. The plea taken appears to be justifiable. Further-more, this
Court does not find any infirmity in the order under challenge.
Therefore, this Court considers it desirable to dispose of the Civil
Revision Petition by upholding the order under challenge,
however, by giving protection considering the apprehension of the
petitioners.
Dr. CSL,J
C.R.P.No.1514 of 2022
6. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The
order rendered by the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar, in E.P.No.44 of 2016 in O.S.No.129 of 2001, dated
04.04.2022 is upheld, as no grounds are found for interference by
this Court. However, the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge,
Karimnagar, is directed not to execute the order of attachment of
movable properties till disposal of the Execution Application filed
for amendment of the Execution Petition. No order as to costs.
7. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
________________________________________
Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
22.09.2022.
Msr
Dr. CSL,J
C.R.P.No.1514 of 2022
THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE CHILLAKUR SUMALATHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1514 of 2022
22.09.2022
(Msr)
Dr. CSL,J
C.R.P.No.1514 of 2022
