Telangana High Court
V. Sajjan Raj Choudhary vs D. Meera Bai on 14 February, 2025
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
CIVIL REVISION PETITON No.2466 of 2024
ORDER:
This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order,
dated 18.06.2024, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda in E.A.No.7 of 2024 in
EA.No.52 of 2023 in EP.No.3 of 2021, whereunder the application
filed under Section 151 CPC praying the Court to issue notice to
respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the Claim Petition was dismissed.
2. Heard Sri K.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the revision
petitioners and Sri A.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for respondent
No.1/D.Hr.
3. The petitioners herein are the claim petitioners and they filed
Claim Petition in E.A.No.52 of 2023 claiming rights over the
schedule property by way of unregistered document having
purchased the same from respondent No.4 herein/J.Dr.No.4.
Hence, they filed E.A.No.7 of 2024 seeking to issue notice to
respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein on the ground that they are proper and
necessary parties for adjudication of the Claim Petition. The
Executing Court vide impugned order dismissed the said
LNA, J
application on the ground that respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein have
already been set ex parte and have suffered decree and that, there is
no challenge to the said decree and as such, there is no requirement
or necessity to issue notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein for
adjudication of the Claim Petition filed by the petitioners herein.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that since the
claim petitioners are basing their claim solely on the document said
to have been executed by respondent No.4 herein/J.Dr.No.4 in their
favour, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are necessary parties for proper
adjudication of the Claim Petition, therefore, notice ought to have
been given to them and further, no prejudice will be caused to
respondent No.1/D.Hr herein in the event of issuance of notice to
respondent Nos.2 to 4.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1/D.Hr.
contended that the Claim Petition has to be adjudicated basing on
the pleadings and material placed on record by the petitioners and
the petitioners have to prove their case only basing on the strength
of the documents adduced by them against the D.Hr and not
against the J.Drs, who already suffered decree, and therefore, there
LNA, J
is no requirement for issuance of notice to respondent Nos.2 to
4/J.Drs and in any event, their presence is not required for
adjudication of the Claim Petition.
6. Perusal of record would disclose that in the Claim Petition
i.e., E.A.No.52 of 2023, the petitioners contended that they are
bonafide purchasers from respondent No.4/J.Dr.No.4 and therefore,
respondent Nos.2 to 4 are proper and necessary parties to the
proceedings so that the Claim Petition filed by the petitioners can
be adjudicated in proper perspective.
7. In the impugned order, the Executing Court has recorded
reasons for dismissal of the application and observed that
respondent Nos.2 to 4 who suffered decree were, in fact, set
ex parte and therefore, there is no requirement for issuance of
notice to them and in any event, the presence of respondent Nos.2
to 4 is not required for adjudication of the Claim Petition filed by
the petitioners.
8. The Executing Court has relied upon the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitturi Subbamma Vs. Kudapa
LNA, J
Subbanna and others 1, wherein it is held that when a party omits
to raise any objection to direction given by the Court in its
judgment, failed to appear, it is deemed to have waived his right
and he cannot challenge the court's direction and dismissed the
application.
9. In the case on hand, the Executing Court in the impugned
order observed that in the EP proceedings, notice was issued to
respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the same was served on them, but they
failed to appear and hence, they were set ex parte. Further, a
warrant was also issued to the bailiff for delivery of possession of
schedule property to respondent No.1/D.Hr and when the bailiff
visited the schedule property, at that stage, the petitioners filed the
Claim Petition.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Claim Petition
filed by the petitioners has to fall or stand on its own merits and
material placed on record.
11. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent
AIR 1965 SC 1325
LNA, J
No.1/D.Hr, this Court does not find any reason or ground to
interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Executing
Court and accordingly, the Revision Petition is liable to be
dismissed.
12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
closed. No costs.
_____________________________________
JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY
Date:14.02.2025
dr
