Telangana High Court
N.Sathemma vs M/S. Maabhoomi Agro Farms Pvt.Ltd on 30 October, 2024
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.3364 of 2024
ORDER :
The instant Civil Revision Petition is filed by the
petitioners under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908
praying the Court to set aside the order dated 27.06.2024 in
E.P.No.663 of 2023 in O.S.No.126 of 2001 passed by the I
Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar
(for short, 'the impugned order').
2. Heard Mr.Avancha H Chakravarthy, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
3. Vide the impugned order, the Trial Court allowed the
Execution Petition filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 (Decree-
Holders) under Order XXI Rules 24 and 35 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 seeking for a direction to the respondent
Nos.3 and 4 (Judgment-Debtors) to execute a registered sale
deed followed by delivery of possession.
4. It appears that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have
originally filed a suit, viz., O.S.No.126 of 2001, which was
dismissed vide judgment dated 08.04.2010. Aggrieved by the
dismissal of the said suit, the respondent Nos.1 and 2
preferred First Appeal, being A.S.No.572 of 2011, before this
High Court. Vide order dated 22.04.2021 in A.S.No.572 of
2011, a learned Single Judge of this Court finally disposed of
said appeal in terms of a Memorandum of Compromise under
Order XXIII Rule 3 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 that was
entered between respondent Nos.1 and 2 and respondent
Nos.3 and 4.
5. Clause (4) of the terms of conditions of the said
compromise, which for ready reference, is extracted as under,
viz.,
"4. That the Defendants / Respondents shall execute
and register the sale deed conveying an extent of Acs.1.20
gts., i.e., Ac.0.32 gts. In Sy.No.179 and Ac.0.28 gts. In
Sy.No.180 of Agapally Village, Manchal Mandal, Ranga
Reddy District, either in favour of the plaintiffs / appellants
or their nominees, at the cost of the plaintiffs / appellants
within 12 months from the date of this compromise."
6. Thereafter, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 preferred
execution petition before the Trial Court, viz., E.P.No.663 of
2023. The said E.P. finally stood decided and allowed vide the
impugned order.
7. Aggrieved, the instant Revision has been filed by the
petitioners.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contended
that another coparcener has filed a suit for partition before the
Trial Court which is yet to be finalized, and at this juncture the
impugned order came to be passed by the Trial Court which is
bad in law. He further contended that a learned Single Judge
of this Court, while disposing of the appeal, viz., A.S.No.572 of
2011, dated 22.04.2021, had not taken into consideration the
aspect of delivery of possession and in the absence of which
also the petitioners had a right to raise objection and which
they had also raised; and therefore, the Appellate Court ought
to have considered the said aspect also.
9. Having heard the contentions put forth by the learned
counsel for the petitioners and also a perusal of the record, the
disposal of the appeal, viz., A.S.No.572 of 2011, dated
22.04.2021, by a learned Single Judge of this court does not
seem to be in dispute. Further, there is no challenge to the
said judgment by any of the parties herein. The so-called
coparcener who has filed the suit for partition also has not
challenged the above judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge anywhere.
10. Clause (iv) of the said terms of compromise, which is also
extracted above for ready reference, also clearly spells out that
the property has to be executed by way of a registered Sale
Deed by the Judgment-Debtors, i.e., respondent Nos.3 and 4 in
favour of the Decree-Holders, i.e., respondent Nos.1 and 2
herein within a period of two (02) months from the date of
disposal of A.S.No.572 of 2011, i.e., by 22.04.2021. However,
the respondent Nos.3 and 4 do not seem to have honoured the
said condition within the stipulated time which led to the filing
of E.P.No.663 of 2023 by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 before
the Trial Court, and which now stands concluded.
11. For the reasons mentioned in the impugned order, and
also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case, this Court does not find any strong case made out by
the learned counsel for the petitioners holding the impugned
order passed by the Trial Court to be in any manner erroneous
or perverse calling for invocation of the Revisional powers of
this Court under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The Revision, being devoid of merit, deserves to be and is
accordingly dismissed. No costs.
12. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any,
shall stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date: 30.10.2024
Ndr
