Telangana High Court
Smt. Nayeemunnisa Begum vs M. Vijay Kumar on 1 September, 2023
Bench: T.Vinod Kumar
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2537 of 2023
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short 'CPC') seeking to set-
aside the order dated 07.08.2023 passed in E.P.No.112 of 2023 in
O.S.No.1706 of 2012 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil
Judge at Malkajgiri, Medchal-Malkajgiri District.
2. Heard Sri. Medi Yadaiah learned counsel for petitioners and
Sri P. Raj Kiran, learned counsel appearing for respondent, and
perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that aggrieved by
the decree and judgment dated 13.06.2023 in O.S.No.1706 of 2012,
the petitioners preferred an appeal being A.S.No.30 of 2023 on the
file of the Principal District Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, at
Malkajgiri. It is further contended that along with the said appeal,
an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.687 of 2023 was filed
seeking stay of operation of judgment and decree dated 13.06.2023
in O.S.No.1706 of 2012; and that the same is posted to 05.09.2023
by ordering urgent notice to the respondent/Decree Holder.
4. Petitioners contend that in the interregnum, the respondent
herein initiated execution proceedings vide E.P.No.112 of 2023,
wherein the petitioners herein had filed an interlocutory
application vide E.A.No.37 of 2023 under Order XXI Rule 26 of
CPC seeking stay all further proceedings in the E.P. till the
disposal of the appeal. It is further contended that the Court below
erred in issuing the impugned warrant vide order dated 07.08.2023
directing the Bailiff to put the respondent in possession of the suit
scheduled property, without disposing the I.A.No.37 of 2023.
5. It is further contended that if the respondent is allowed to
proceed with the execution proceedings as initiated in E.P.No.112
of 2023, the I.A.No.687 of 2023 filed by the petitioners in
A.S.No.30 of 2023 seeking stay of operation of judgment and
decree 13.06.2023 in O.S.No.1706 of 2012 would be rendered
infructuous.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent, while
not disputing the fact of the petitioners herein preferring an appeal
against the judgment and decree dated 13.06.2023, would submit
that since there is no stay operating against the said judgment and
decree dated 13.06.2023, the respondent is entitled to proceed with
initiation of execution proceedings.
7. I have taken note of respective contentions.
8. It is not in dispute that the petitioners, having suffered an
adverse order dated 13.06.2023 in O.S.No.1706 of 2012, had taken
steps to obtain a certified copy thereof and also filed an appeal
being A.S.No.30 of 2023 within time. It is also not in dispute that
in the said appeal filed by them, an application being I.A.No.687 of
2023 seeking stay of operation of the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.1706 of 2012 is also sought for and the said application
stands posted by the concerned Court for hearing on 05.09.2023.
9. Having regard to the said fact that the stay application filed by
petitioners in I.A.No.687 of 2023 in A.S.No.30 of 2023 stands
posted to 05.09.2023 before the lower appellate Court, this Court is
of the view that it is just to restrain the respondent from proceeding
with the execution proceedings initiated by him seeking
enforcement of the judgment and decree dated
13.06.2023 in O.S.No.1706 of 2012 passed by the trial Court, till
the first appellate Court adjudicates the said stay application.
10. However, this Court is also conscious of the fact that the
troubles of a litigant in India begin after obtaining a decree in his
favor. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again expressed
concern over the misuse of procedure by the judgment debtors to
thwart the execution of a decree by raising all possible objections.
The Apex Court in Satyawati Vs. Rajinder Singh and Ors 1, had
observed that a success in a suit means nothing to a litigant unless
he experiences the relief granted. Therefore, the Apex Court held
that the emphasis in civil litigation should not only be on disposal
of suits but also on the execution of such decrees. The relevant
observations are as under:
(2013)9SCC491
"16. Once again in the case of Shub Karan Bubna alias Shub Karan
Prasad Bubna v. Sita Saran Bubna and Ors. MANU/SC/1607/2009 :
(2009) 9 SCC 689 at para 27 this Court observed as under:
In the present system, when preliminary decree for partition is passed,
there is no guarantee that the Plaintiff will see the fruits of the decree.
The proverbial observation by the Privy Council is that the difficulties of
a litigant begin when he obtains a decree. It is necessary to remember
that success in a suit means nothing to a party unless he gets the
relief. Therefore, to be really meaningful and efficient, the scheme of
the Code should enable a party not only to get a decree quickly, but
also to get the relief quickly. This requires a conceptual change
regarding civil litigation, so that the emphasis is not only on disposal of
suits, but also on securing relief to the litigant.
17. As stated by us hereinabove, the position has not been improved till
today. We strongly feel that there should not be unreasonable delay
in execution of a decree because if the decree holder is unable to
enjoy the fruits of his success by getting the decree executed, the
entire effort of successful litigant would be in vain."
11. Therefore, it is made clear that the indulgence shown by this
Court is limited till 05.09.2023, on which date both parties shall
proceed with the interlocutory application being I.A.No.687 of
2023 in A.S.No.30 of 2023. In the event the petitioners herein
attempt to prolong the matter by seeking adjournments, the
respondent herein is at liberty to proceed with the execution
proceedings.
12. Subject to the above observations made, the Civil Revision
Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
13. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand
closed.
___________________
T. VINOD KUMAR, J
Date: 01.09.2023
Vsv
