J.S.R. Durga Prasad vs G. Raghavulu
2025 Latest Caselaw 6590 Tel

Telangana High Court

J.S.R. Durga Prasad vs G. Raghavulu on 19 November, 2025

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

       HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA


      CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4149 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior

Designated Counsel representing Sri Gopala Rao

Amancharla V, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner on record, and Sri Anup Kuravadi,

learned counsel representing Sri Anup Koushik

Kuravadi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents on record.

2. Aggrieved by the orders dated 14.11.2025 passed in

E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 passed by the

Principal District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, the

present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner.

3. PERUSED THE RECORD

A) The relevant portion of the impugned order

dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in

SN, J CRP_4149_2025

O.S.No.175 of 2017 passed by the Principal District

Judge, Sangareddy is extracted hereunder:

"10. No doubt, review petition is filed. But by mere filing the review petition itself is not the ground for not proceeding with this E.P which is filed on obtaining the judgment and decree on contest and attained finality. Mere filing of the review application is not a bar for execution court to proceed with the matter as held in V. Vengamalai Gounder (deceased) by L.Rs and others v. K. Perumal Gounder LNIND 2011 MAD 4181. The decree holders in whose favour the decree was passed should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the judgment and decree. All the issues raised by the judgment debtor herein are not considerable in this E.P proceedings.

11. As the judgment and decree is passed in favour of the decree holders and against the judgment debtor, the judgment debtor didn't pay any amount subsequent to the passing of the decree which has obtained finality having not preferred any appeal and as no denial with regard to the schedule property as belongs to him, this court is of the view that the decree holder is entitled for execution of the E.P by attaching the schedule property on payment of process.

SN, J CRP_4149_2025

12. In the result, the E.P is allowed and ordered for attachment of the E.P schedule immovable property on payment of process. No order as to costs. Call on 26.11.2025. For process by 17.11.2025."

B) The petitioner filed the review petition i.e.,

I.A.No.2660 of 2024 in O.S. No.175 of 2017 before the

trial Court challenging the decree dated 01.08.2024

passed in O.S.No.175 of 2017 seeking prayer as

under:

"to review the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2024 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 by setting aside the judgment and decree and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

4. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the trial Court

failed to observe that the review petition I.A.No.2660 of

2024 in O.S. No.175 of 2017 had been filed by the

petitioner herein challenging the decree dated 01.08.2024

SN, J CRP_4149_2025

passed in O.S.No.175 of 2017 on legal grounds such as

jurisdiction, limitation, non-joinder of parties, absence of

witnesses, and the validity of the promissory notes when no

consideration had been passed on and the same are

sufficient grounds for adjudication in review. However,

though there were valid grounds for adjudication of the

review, the trial Court, without examining the same on

merits, proceeded finally and passed the impugned order

dated 14.11.2025 in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of

2017 by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy.

5. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on

behalf of the petitioner submits that, in the interest of

justice, it is just and necessary to set aside the impugned

order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in

O.S. No. 175 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge,

Sangareddy.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents, however, contends that mere filing of a review

application by the petitioner cannot be a ground for the trial

SN, J CRP_4149_2025

Court not to proceed and pass orders in E.P. No. 37 of 2025

in O.S. No. 175 of 2017, in view of the fact that though the

review had been filed in the year 2024 no stay had been

granted by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions

Judge at Sangareddy.

7. This Court opines that the said plea put forth by the

respondents is no doubt true but this Court takes note of

the fact as borne on record that the application I.A.No.2660

of 2024 filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order

dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in

O.S.No.175 of 2017 had been pending consideration before

the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, as on 14.11.2025

and even as on date, and since the said application had not

been adjudicated on its merits, execution of the E.P. at this

stage would render the very filing of the review petition by

the petitioner herein as infructuous. Therefore, this Court

opines that in the interest of Justice the I.A.No.2660 of

2024 filed by the petitioner in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in

O.S.No.175 of 2017 needs to be adjudicated finally on

merits in accordance to law.

SN, J CRP_4149_2025

8. Taking into consideration the submissions made

by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing

on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondents, the Civil

Revision Petition is disposed of, directing the Principal

District Judge, Sangareddy, to dispose of the review

application, I.A. No. 2660 of 2024 in accordance to

law on merits and pass appropriate orders, within a

period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of

a copy of this order. It is specifically observed that

both parties shall cooperate and ensure the final

disposal of the review application, I.A. No. 2660 of

2024 on merits, within the said period of three (03)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

There shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant

to the order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P. No. 37 of

2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017 on the file of Principal

District Judge, Sangareddy, for a period of three (03)

weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,

till the above exercise as indicated as above within

the time period as stipulated as above is initiated and

SN, J CRP_4149_2025

concluded. However, there shall be no order as to

costs.

The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

Date: 19.11.2025 Note: Furnish C.C. by 20.11.2025.

Lpd