Telangana High Court
Budida Swathi vs Veeraboina Ramesh on 16 September, 2025
Author: N. Tukaramji
Bench: N. Tukaramji
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA,
HYDERABAD
***
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2016 OF 2025
Between:
Budida Swathi, D/o. Pochaiah, Aged 24 years, Occu: Private Teacher,
R/o. Nagaram Village of Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Veeraboina Ramesh
2. Nallagonda Kumar
3. The Shriram Gen Insurance Com. Ltd., E8 EPIP RIICO
Industrial Area, Jaipur Rajasthan State - 302022,
represented by its Branch Manager.
Respondents
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON: 16.09.2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers
may be allowed to see the Judgment? : Yes
2. Whether the copies of judgment may be
Marked to Law Reporters/Journals? : Yes
3. Whether His Lordship wishes to
see the fair copy of the Judgment? : Yes
________________
N. TUKARAMJI, J
2 NTR,J
C.R.P.No. 2016 of 2025
* THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI
+ CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2016 OF 2025
% 16.09.2025
# Between:
Budida Swathi, D/o. Pochaiah, Aged 24 years, Occu: Private Teacher,
R/o. Nagaram Village of Manthani Mandal, Karimnagar District.
Petitioner
VERSUS
1. Veeraboina Ramesh
2. Nallagonda Kumar
3. The Shriram Gen Insurance Com. Ltd., E8 EPIP RIICO
Industrial Area, Jaipur Rajasthan State - 302022, represented
by its Branch Manager.
Respondents
! Counsel for revision petitioner : Mr. S. Mohd. Abdul Kareem Khan
^Counsel for the respondent(s) : Ms. T.Padmaja, learned counsel,
representing Mr. Harinath Reddy
Soma, learned counsel for respondent
No.3.
<GIST:
> HEAD NOTE:
? Cases referred
Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P) Ltd.,
[(2005) 1 SCC 705]
3 NTR,J
C.R.P.No. 2016 of 2025
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2016 OF 2025
ORDER
I have heard Mr. S. Mohd. Abdul Kareem Khan, learned counsel
for the revision petitioner and Ms. T.Padmaja, learned counsel,
representing Mr.Harinath Reddy Soma, learned counsel for
respondent No.3.
2. This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the revision
petitioner challenging the order dated 19.03.2025 passed by the
learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, in
Execution Petition No. 27 of 2022 arising out of M.V.O.P. No. 541 of
2013.
3. Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the revision petitioner
instituted O.P. No. 541 of 2013 (M.V.O.P.) seeking compensation for
the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The said petition
was allowed by the Tribunal on 24.08.2015, awarding compensation of
Rs.10,00,000/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum
from the date of the petition until realization. Aggrieved by the quantum
of compensation awarded, the petitioner is stated to have preferred an
appeal in M.A.C.M.A. No. 3360 of 2019, which is presently pending
before this Court. In the meanwhile, the executing Court, by the
4 NTR,J
impugned order, directed the petitioner to file a fresh execution petition
subject to the outcome of the said appeal, leading to the present
revision petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the executing
Court committed an error in passing the impugned order and in closing
the pending execution petition. He, however, fairly concedes that in the
appeal (M.A.C.M.A.), this Court, by way of an interim measure,
granted a stay of all further proceedings in the execution petition upon
consideration of the pleadings advanced on behalf of the
respondent/insurer. Notwithstanding such interim stay, learned counsel
contends that the closure of the execution petition causes serious
prejudice to the petitioner, inasmuch as the respondents have thus far
paid only a part of the decretal amount. He, therefore, prays for the
intervention of this Court and for setting aside the impugned order of
the executing Court.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
No. 3/insurer submits that subsequent to the award in the M.V.O.P.
and prior to the filing of the execution petition by the revision petitioner,
an amicable settlement was arrived at between the parties outside the
Court, thereafter the appeal M.A.C.M.A was filed. She further submits
that in view of such settlement, the respondent/insurer contested the
5 NTR,J
appeal filed by the petitioner in the M.A.C.M.A., and this Court, taking
note of the circumstances, directed that the execution proceedings be
stayed. Further points out that the appeal (M.A.C.M.A.) was initially
dismissed for non-prosecution, but was subsequently restored on
10.01.2025. Consequent upon restoration, the stay order was brought
to the notice of the executing Court, thereupon the impugned order
came to be passed directing that a fresh execution petition may be
filed subject to the outcome of the appeal. Learned counsel submits
that the executing Court acted within its jurisdiction and that no
impropriety or illegality can be attributed to the impugned order. She
accordingly prays for dismissal of the revision petition.
6. I have perused the material on record.
7. The fact of filing of the appeal in M.A.C.M.A. and the consequent
order of this Court granting stay of execution proceedings is not in
dispute between the parties. Pending adjudication of the said appeal,
the effect of the stay granted is that the decree and award passed by
the Tribunal remain in abeyance, thereby leaving no executable
decree in force on the date of consideration by the executing Court. It
is well settled, however, that for realization of decretal dues, there is no
absolute bar to the filing of an execution petition; nevertheless, the
continuance or progress of such proceedings is subject to any
6 NTR,J
subsisting order of stay issued by the appellate Court under Order XLI
Rule 5 CPC.
8. A perusal of the impugned order reflects that the executing
Court, having taken note of the restoration of the appeal and the
undisputed fact that stay of further execution proceedings had been
granted by this Court, closed the execution petition, while expressly
reserving liberty to the petitioner to initiate fresh execution proceedings
upon disposal of the appeal. Such an approach of the executing Court
is in consonance with the settled principles of law. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Atma Ram Properties (P) Ltd. v. Federal Motors (P)
Ltd., (2005) 1 SCC 705, and other subsequent pronouncements, has
reiterated that once a stay of execution is granted by the appellate
Court, the decree-holder cannot derive the benefit of execution during
the pendency of the appeal, except to the extent permitted under law.
9. In light of the above, this Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or
impropriety in the view adopted by the executing Court. On the
contrary, by reserving liberty to the petitioner to pursue fresh execution
proceedings after the conclusion of the M.A.C.M.A., the executing
Court has safeguarded the petitioner's right to realize the decretal
amount, subject to the outcome of the appeal. Consequently, this Civil
7 NTR,J
Revision Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs
Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________
N.TUKARAMJI, J
Date: 16.09.2025
svl
