Dismissed

Devalla Veera Venkata Ravi Kumar, v. M/s Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt.

Andhra Pradesh HC15 Dec 2022CRP/1289/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench dismissed a civil revision petition filed to stop the execution of an ex parte decree. The court held that defects in the original arbitral proceedings regarding notice and service must be challenged via Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before the Arbitrator, not in an execution petition or civil revision. Since the decree remains valid until set aside, the execution proceedings continue

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petition dismissed; petitioners directed to pay costs of Rs. 2,000 to High Court Legal Services Authority; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Devalla Veera Venkata Ravi Kumar, Vs M/s… — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No.1289 of 2021

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC against the notice dated 31.07.2021 issued in E.P.No.109 of 2021 in Dispute No.10/2017 on the file of the court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam.

¶5

The execution petition is filed by the 1^st respondent herein/DHr for attachment and sale of immovable properties of JDrs No.3, 4 and 5 as per Order 21, Rule 43 CPC, for realization of EP amount of Rs.8,02,485/- with subsequent interest as per the award.

¶6

Having aggrieved by the issue of notices in the execution petition, JDrs No.3 and 4 preferred the revision petition stating that the decree sought to be executed was passed ex parte on 17.07.2017 by the Deputy Registrar of Chits/Arbitrator at Visakhapatnam, and the same is against weight of evidence and probabilities of the case and that the revision petitioners have no knowledge about passing of the award and they came to know about the same only on 19.03.2020. It is also contended that the petitioners have not received the documents or the copy of the petition before the Arbitrator and further that the petitioners have not executed any documents standing as guarantors for the 2^nd respondent herein/JDr No.1 and that the documents might have been forged and manipulated by the DHr in collusion with the JDrs No.1 and 2 who are respondents no.2 and 3

¶7

¶8

CRP No.1289 of 2021

¶9

herein. It is contended that the petitioners could not file petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in time as they did not have knowledge of passing of the ex parte award and that there are no willful latches on their part, but it is all due to non-service of notices in the dispute between the Arbitrator.

¶10

Heard the learned counsels for both parties on 23.11.2022 and the matter has been posted ‘for orders’ today as they requested to give some time for advancing further arguments, if necessary. Inspite of giving ample opportunity, no further arguments are advanced.

¶11

So long as the decree, though passed ex parte, is not set aside, the same remains valid and can be executed by DHr. The petitioners cannot urge before the execution Court that they did not receive notices in the proceedings before the Arbitrator. If there are any such grounds available to them, they have to file application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, if permitted under law and challenge the decree before the Arbitrator, but cannot resist the execution on such ground.

¶12

Though this revision petition was filed in November, 2021 stating that on 19.03.2020, they came to know about the award dated 17.07.2017, no steps have been taken either before filing the revision petition or at any time thereafter till the matter has been taken up for hearing before this Court in revision today.

¶13

Merely because the petitioners deny that they are not the guarantors of the principal debtor, without the ex parte decree being set aside, there

¶14

¶15

CRP No.1289 of 2021

¶16

is no valid ground for them to resist the execution petition against them. As such, it is only a futile exercise made by the petitioners by filing revision petition, just for the purpose of dragging on the matter without having any valid point of law in their favour.

¶17

As such, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.

¶18

In the result, the revision petition is dismissed directing the petitioners to pay costs of Rs.2,000/- (rupees two thousand only) to the High Court Legal Services Authority.

¶19

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

¶20

_________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J

¶21

Dt. 15-12-2022

¶22

PNV

Devalla Veera Venkata Ravi Kumar, v. M/s Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devalla Veera Venkata Ravi Kumar, v. M/s Kapil Chits (Kosta) Pvt.

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

Grosu Muralikrishna Vs Bijigam Siva Sankar

Manepalli Anjaneyulu Vs Gudavalli Lakshmi Parvathi

Kanumuri Sarojini Devi Vs Kanumuri Anuradha Nagamani

M.R.Pradeep Kumar Vs S.Nanda Kishore

G Jayalakshmi Vs M Bharathi

Guthulu Nirmala Devi Vs Pithani Lakshmi Devi