Telangana High Court
Vankudothu Bala Krishna, vs Banothu Badhya Bhaya Baddu Nayak, on 2 November, 2023
Bench: P.Sree Sudha
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2767 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated
17.08.2022 in E.A.No.1 of 2021 in E.P.No.1 of 2021 in
O.S.No.38 of 2019 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge,
Huzurnagar.
2. The trial Court by Order dated 17.08.2022, granted police
aid in favour of the respondent/decree holder directing the
S.H.O, P.S Mattampally to render assistance to the decree
holder in implementing the decree passed by the trial Court in
O.S.No.38 of 2019. Aggrieved by the said Order respondents
therein preferred the present Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioners/J.Drs mainly
contended that real name of the plaintiff in the suit would be
Banothu Badyanayak and he has no other surnames like
Banothu Badhya @ Bhaya @ Baddu Nayak, on this ground
alone order passed in E.A.No.1 of 2021 in E.P.No.1 of 2021 in
O.S.No.38 of 2019 can be set aside. The trial Court failed to
observe that documents including revenue records i.e.,
pahanies and pattadar passbooks of the suit schedule property,
the respondent/plaintiff neither having any land nor power or
authority over the suit schedule land and it is in the name of
somebody else like his brother and filed false pahani and got
injunction. Even if respondent/plaintiff got any assignment
patta from the revenue authorities, why his name was not
mutated in the concerned revenue records was not explained
and it shows that assignment patta itself is fictitious and
created one. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the
Order of the trial Court.
4. O.S.No.38 of 2019 was filed by the respondent/plaintiff
seeking perpetual injunction against the petitioners/defendants
and the same was decreed by the trial Court on 05.02.2020 in
favour of the respondent/plaintiff. In the said Judgment, it was
observed that in spite of receiving summons, defendants No.1
and 2 did not appear before the Court, as such they were set
exparte. The petitioners herein contended that they filed an
application in I.A.No.745 of 2023 in O.S.No.38 of 2019 to set
aside the exparte Order and it is pending for adjudication, but
the perusal of the record shows that the said application was
filed on 02.08.2023 i.e., with a delay of 1255 days to set aside
the exparte Order. Initially, E.P.No.1 of 2021 was filed on
21.01.2021, to punish petitioners/defendants by sending them
to Civil Imprisonment for a period of three months under Order
21 rule 32 of C.P.C and the respondent/plaintiff was ready to
pay Batta as per the directions of the Court. During the
pendency of the said Execution Petition, E.A.No.1 of 2021 was
filed seeking to provide necessary police aid and the same was
Ordered on 17.08.2022. Aggrieved by the said Order, the
present Civil Revision Petition is preferred.
5. As the petitioners herein remained exparte in the trial
Court, now they cannot contend that the name of the
respondent/plaintiff has no other surnames. Admittedly, decree
was passed in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and he has
filed Execution Petition requesting the Court to send the
petitioners/defendants to the Civil Imprisonment for a period of
three months. During the pendency of the said petition, he has
also filed E.A.No.1 of 2021 seeking police aid. Therefore, this
Court finds that there is no infirmity in the Order of the trial
Court and it needs no interference.
6. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed
confirming the Order dated 17.08.2022, passed by the trial
Court in E.A.No.1 of 2021 in E.P.No.1 of 2021 in O.S.No.38 of
2019. There shall be no Order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
_________________________
JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
DATE: 02.11.2023
tri
