Telangana High Court
B. Chinna Krishna Reddy vs V. Surender Reddy on 24 January, 2025
Author: P. Sam Koshy
Bench: P. Sam Koshy
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY
Civil Revision Petition No.173 of 2025
ORDER :
The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by
the petitioner (Judgment-Debtor) under Section 115 of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the order dated 31.12.2024
passed in E.P.No.685 of 2023 in O.S.No.96 of 1999 by the
V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.
Nagar (for short, 'the impugned order').
2. Heard Mr. A. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the
petitioner (Judgment-Debtor).
3. A perusal of the pleadings would go to show that the
respondents (plaintiffs) have filed the above suit, viz.,
O.S.No.96 of 1999, seeking for recovery of possession of an
extent of 761 Sq.Yds. in Sy.No.102/3/11 consisting of
plots bearing Nos.4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 situated at Nagole
Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Vide
Judgment dated 21.11.2002 the Trial Court decreed the
suit in favour of respondents with costs and directed the
petitioner herein to deliver vacant possession of the subject
land to the respondents within three months from the date
::2:: PSK,J
crp_173_2025
of order and also directed the petitioner not to alienate the
suit schedule land.
4. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred appeal
before this High Court by filing Appeal Suit Nos.172 and
403 of 2003. However, vide order dated 16.10.2024, a
learned Judge of this Court dismissed the appeals and
confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2002 in
O.S.No.96 of 1999 on the file of the V Additional District
Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar.
5. By efflux of time, the said judgment and decree dated
21.11.2002 has attained finality.
6. In between, the respondents herein (plaintiffs)
initiated E.P. proceedings before the Trial Court by filing
E.P.No.685 of 2023 in O.S.No.96 of 1999 under Order XXI
Rule 35(1) to (3) r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code,
1908 praying the Court to direct the petitioner (Judgment-
Debtor) to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of E.P.
Schedule property to the respondents herein (Decree-
Holders).
7. Vide order dated 31.12.2024, the Trial Court allowed
E.P.No.685 of 2023 in O.S.No.96 of 1999 and issued
::3:: PSK,J
crp_173_2025
"Delivery Warrant" under Rule 35 of Order XXI of Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 through process of Court.
8. Assailing the same, the instant Revision has been
filed by the petitioner (Judgment-Debtor).
9. Considering the fact that the proceedings in the
appeal have all been concluded and the appeal filed by the
petitioner herein has also been dismissed, this Court is of
the considered opinion that the petitioner herein has not
been able to show any strong case made out to stall the
operation of the impugned order. Another reason why this
Court is reluctant to entertain the Revision is the fact that
the judgment and decree was passed by the Trial Court in
way back in November, 2002, and it is more than two
decades now that the respondents (Decree-Holders) have
still not been able to reap the fruits of the judgment and
decree in their favour.
10. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons this Court is
not inclined to entertain the Civil Revision Petition as the
same is being devoid of any merit. Therefore, the Revision
fails and the same deserves to be and is accordingly
dismissed. No costs.
::4:: PSK,J
crp_173_2025
11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if
any, shall stand closed.
___________________
P. SAM KOSHY, J
Date : 24.01.2025
Ndr
