Dismissed

Ngos Housing Building Socieity v. a.S.Maqbool

Andhra Pradesh HC16 Dec 2019CRP/1140/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a civil revision petition filed by Judicial Doctors challenging an executing court order. It held that the petitioners, whose attempt to evade decree execution was exposed, lacked any ground to pursue the revision, especially when their grievance regarding notice service had no bearing on the matter.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed with costs of the first respondent; interim order vacated; pending petitions closed.

Ngos Housing Building Socieity Vs a.S.Maqbool — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

MVR,J

¶2

C.R.P.No.1140 of 2019

¶3

¶4

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1140 OF 2019

¶6

ORDER:

¶7

Heard Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners. None represented the respondents. The petitioners, who are J.Drs. 1 and 3 claim that they are aggrieved by the order of the Executing Court in E.A.No.38 of 2018 in E.P.No.8 of 2017 in O.S.No.21 of 2006, dated 30.01.2019. It was an application filed under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC to restore the execution petition, which was dismissed on 07.09.2018 on account of failure to deposit required process fee for service of notice on the J.Drs.

¶8

By the supposed impugned order, the D.Hr., who is the first respondent, was directed to pay costs of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioners on or before 08.02.2019 and E.P. was directed to be restored to file upon setting aside the order of dismissal, dated 07.09.2018.

¶9

Sri V.Ch.Naidu, learned counsel for the petitioners now represents that the first respondent is prepared to pay costs as directed by the above order. The only grievance expressed is that the petitioners have not been served notice in terms of Rule 32 of Order XXI CPC, since the first respondent did not deposit required process fee.

¶10

The so called grievance, has no bearing at all in the present matter. It cannot be stated even as a grievance for the petitioners to agitate.

¶11

As this is the situation, where the petitioners have not been served the required notices in the execution petition. In such circumstances, the petitioners cannot assume certain events to happen and come up with this revision petition.

¶12

MVR,J

¶13

C.R.P.No.1140 of 2019

¶14

¶15

Their attempt, as can be culled out from the material on record is, to see that the proposed execution of the decree passed against them, shall not go on. The reason is that the nature of decree passed is amenable to relief in terms of Order XXI Rule 32 CPC and on account of a decree for mandatory injunction passed against J.Drs., on 12.06.2007 and in favour of the first respondent – D.Hr., complaining failure of the J.Drs., to abide by the terms of the decree; execution petition was instituted in the Executing Court, by the first respondent.

¶16

When the intention of the petitioners now stand exposed in filing the civil revision petition, it cannot be stated that they have a reason to pursue this matter.

¶17

Therefore, finding that the petitioners absolutely have no reason or ground to file or pursue this revision petition, it has to be dismissed with the costs of the first respondent.

¶18

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with costs of the first respondent. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. All pending petitions, stand closed.

¶19

____________________ M. VENKATA RAMANA, J

¶20

Dt:16.12.2019 Rns

¶21

MVR,J

¶22

C.R.P.No.1140 of 2019

¶23

¶24

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M. VENKATA RAMANA

¶25

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1140 OF 2019

¶26

Date:16.12.2019

¶27

Rns

¶28

C.R.P.No.1140 of 2019

¶29

¶30

MVR,J

Ngos Housing Building Socieity v. a.S.Maqbool

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ngos Housing Building Socieity v. a.S.Maqbool

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sangisetti Veera Venkata Muneswara Rao, E.G.Dist Vs Yalla Adilakshmi, Rjy, E.G.Dist and 2 Others

M Devrajulu, Tpt., Chittoor Dist Vs S. Peddulu, Tpt., Chittoor Dist

Palaparthy Seethamahalakshmi Vs Kupa Venkata Haragopal and Eleven Others

Gandham Rama Swathi Vs Gandham RAvi Sankar

Dasari Roop Kiran Kumar, Guntur Dist Vs Dasari Rambabu, Guntur Dist

Konda Hanuman Reddy at Peda Hanuma Reddy Vs Vuyyuru Malleswari