Dismissed

Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt. Ltd. v. Smt P Sunitha

Andhra Pradesh HC11 Oct 2022CRP/506/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed multiple civil revision petitions challenging attachment orders in execution proceedings. The Court held that execution petitions filed within the extended limitation period did not require a mandatory notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 CPC, and concluded that civil revision petitions are not maintainable against such attachment orders, citing K. Siva Ramakrishna Prasad.

What did the court decide?

The batch of Civil Revision Petitions stood dismissed; miscellaneous applications pending were closed.

Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt. Ltd… — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMAR3AVATI

¶3

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶4

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.335, 412, 431, 435, 439, 440, 443, 453, 455, 467, 486, 506, 508, 517, 521, 523, 524 and 543 of 2021

¶5

C.R.P.No.335 of 2021

¶6

Between:-

¶7

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another …. Petitioners

¶8

And Muppala Usharani ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.412 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another…. And	Petitioners
Kambam Jayabharata Reddy ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.431 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another …. And	Petitioners
Avula Nagalingeswara Reddy ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.435 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another …. And	Petitioners
Bekkem Subba Reddy ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.439 of 2021 Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another …. And	Petitioners
Avula Varalakshmi ….	Respondent

¶9

¶10

C.R.P.No.440 of 2021

¶11

Between:- 1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another …. And	Petitioners
R.Nagarathnamma ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.443 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another…. And	Petitioners
Rachala Ramaiah ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.453 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another…. And	Petitioners
Elugoti Bharathi ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.455 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another…. And	Petitioners
Sirigiri Adinarayana Reddy ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.467 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another…. And	Petitioners
Avula Lakshmi Narayana Reddy ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.486 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another…. And	Petitioners
Rachala Ramaiah ….	Respondent

¶12

¶13

C.R.P.No.506 of 2021

¶14

Between:1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another…. Petitioners And Pittala Sunitha …. Respondent

¶15

C.R.P.No.508 of 2021

¶16

Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another…. And	Petitioners
Avula Bhargavi ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.517 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another …. And	Petitioners
C.M.Manohar Reddy ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.521 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another …. And	Petitioners
Busakanti Parthasaradhi ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.523 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another…. And	Petitioners
Elugoti Saraswathamma ….	Respondent
C.R.P.No.524 of 2021
Between:-
1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another …. And	Petitioners
Sirigiri Adinarayana Reddy ….	Respondent

¶17

¶18

C.R.P.No.543 of 2021

¶19

Between:-

¶20

1.Sree Rayalaseema Sugar and Energy Pvt.Ltd., and another …. Petitioners And

¶21

1.Gudipati Rami Reddy(died) by his LRs

¶22

2.Gudipati Subbalakshmamma and 3 others

¶23

…. Respondents

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr.B.S.Reddy Counsel for the Respondents : Mr.V.R.Reddy Kovvuri

¶25

COMMON ORDER :

¶26

As the issue involved in this batch of Civil Revision Petitions is identical, the same are disposed of by this Common Order.

¶27

The petitioners in all these cases are the Judgment debtors. The respective respondents/Decree holders/plaintiffs filed individual suits seeking refund of advance amount paid pursuant to different Agreements of Sale executed in their favour by the petitioners/Judgment debtors, which were decreed on different dates. The petitioners preferred appeals against the Judgments and also moved stay petitions. The respondents/Decree holders filed petitions seeking Execution of their respective decrees under Order XXI, Rules 54 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure(for short ‘CPC’). The details of date of decrees, date of filing of Execution Petitions( for short ‘E.Ps’.) and date of attachment orders passed thereon by the Executing Court, for ready reference is tabulated below:

¶28

¶29

Sl. No.	CRP.No.	O.S.No.	Date of Decree	E.P.No.	Date of Filing EP	Date of Attachment order in EP
1.	335/2021	086/2014	29-10-2018	15/2021	19-01-2021	23-01-2021
2.	431/2021	069/2014	31-10-2018	13/2021	18-01-2021	25-01-2021
3.	435/2021	046/2014	29-10-2018	21/2021	18-01-2021	23-01-2021
4.	439/2021	064/2014	29-10-2018	09/2021	18-01-2021	02-02-2021
5.	440/2021	017/2014	31-10-2018	10/2021	18-01-2021	02-02-2021
6.	443/2021	388/2013	29-10-2018	17/2021	18-01-2021	23-01-2021
7.	412/2021	394/2013	29-10-2018	18/2021	18-01-2021	23-01-2021
8.	453/2021	386/2013	29-10-2018	14/2021	18-01-2021	25-01-2021
9.	455/2021	396/2013	29-10-2018	16/2021	18-01-2021	23-01-2021
10.	467/2021	067/2014	31-10-2018	08/2021	18-01-2021	02-02-2021
11.	486/2021	392/2013	29-10-2018	20/2021	18-01-2021	23-01-2021
12.	506/2021	066/2014	29-10-2018	23/2021	18-01-2021	23-01-2021
13.	508/2021	071/2014	31-10-2018	31/2021	18-01-2021	03-02-2021
14.	517/2021	072/2014	29-10-2018	12/2021	18-01-2021	25-01-2021
15.	521/2021	393/2013	31-10-2018	19/2021	18-01-2021	23-01-2021
16.	523/2021	395/2013	31-10-2018	11/2021	18-01-2021	02-02-2021
17.	543/2021	018/2014	29-10-2018	32/2021	25-01-2021	03-02-2021
18.	524/2021	397/2013	31-10-2018	22/2021	18-01-2021	23-01-2021

¶30

3. It may be noted here that along with the Execution Petitions, a note was appended by the counsel for respondents/Decree holders stating that in view of the Order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, issuance of notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 of CPC is not necessary. The same was reiterated in the affidavit filed in support of the Execution Petitions. The learned Executing Court considering

¶31

the note appended to the Execution Petitions and averments in the affidavit in support of the E.Ps., issued notice under Rule 54 of CPC, on payment of process.

¶32

¶33

4. Aggrieved by the said docket orders, the above said batch of Civil Revision Petitions came to be filed.

¶34

5. Heard Mr. B.S.Reddy, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners/Judgment debtors and Mr.V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents/Decree holders.

¶35

6. Referring to the lead case C.R.P.No.335 of 2021, the learned counsel for the petitioners/Judgment debtors contends that the O.S.No.86 of 2014 was decreed against the petitioners on 29.10.2018 and the E.P., was filed on 23.01.2021 i.e., two years after passing of the decree and therefore, notice is mandatory in terms of Order XXI, Rule 22 of CPC. He submits that no notice, was issued to the petitioners/Judgment debtors and therefore, the Orders under Revision are liable to be set aside on that ground. He would further submit that Order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, had no application to the case on hand and the limitation for filing of Execution Petitions under Article 136 of the Limitation Act i.e., 12 years only would stand extended by virtue of the said Order. According to the learned counsel, the said Order extends period of limitation for filing suits, appeals etc., but would not apply to the Execution Petitions and the issuance of notice under Order XXI, Rule 22 CPC being a mandatory procedure, cannot be dispensed with under the guise of the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. He also submits that the value of one Acre is running into crores and the learned Executing Court mechanically attached

¶36

¶37

the entire property of Ac.32.00 and on that ground also the Orders under Revision are liable to be set aside.

¶38

7. Relying on the decisions in M.Sheelamma(died per L.Rs) and Others v. B.Albert and Another¹ and P.Jayantha Rao and Another v. V.Venkateswarlu² , the learned counsel prays that the Revision Petitions may be allowed, by setting aside the impugned orders.

¶39

8. The learned counsel for the respondents/Decree holders, on the other hand, supported the impugned orders, inter alia, contending that the same suffers from no infirmity or illegality. He contends that by virtue of the Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 23.03.2020, period of limitation stands extended in respect of Execution Proceedings also, E.Ps., as filed are therefore within two years and hence no notice is required. He also submits that the Revision Petitions are not maintainable and places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Division Bench in K.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad

¶40

and Ors., v. Shriram City Union Finance Ltd.,³ . Making the said submissions, the learned counsel seeks dismissal of the Revision Petitions.

¶41

9. Considering the submissions made and perusing the material on

¶42

record, the point that falls for consideration by this Court is “Whether the Orders under Revision are not sustainable for non-compliance with the provisions of the Order XXI, Rule 22 of CPC and the same are liable to be

¶43

set aside?”

¶44

1 2006(2) ALD 574

¶45

2 (2002) 1 Andhra Weekly Reporter 200

¶46

3 2019(1) ALD 682

¶47

¶48

10. For the purpose of adjudicating the point for consideration, it may be appropriate to reproduce the relevant Orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, dated 23.03.2020 passed in the wake of outspread of Covid-19:

¶49

“This Court has taken Suo Motu cognizance of the situation arising out of the challenge faced by the country on account of Covid-19 Virus and resultant difficulties that may be faced by litigants across the country in filing their petitions/applications/suits/appeals/all other proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed under the general law of limitation or under Special Laws(both Central and/or State).

¶50

To obviate such difficulties and to ensure that lawyers/litigants do not have to come physically to file such proceedings in respective Courts/Tribunals across the country including this Court, it is hereby ordered that a period of limitation in all such proceedings, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under the general law or Special Laws whether condonable or not shall stand extended w.e.f, 15^th March 2020 till further order/s to be passed by this Court in present proceedings.”

¶51

11. It is also appropriate to extract the Order dated 08.03.2021 in Suo

¶52

Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020, which reads thus:

¶53

In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period

¶54

¶55

of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2020, if any, shall become available with effect from 15.03.2021.

¶56

In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 15.03.2021, is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.

¶57

The period from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.

¶58

In the lead case, suit was decreed on 29.10.2018. Execution Petition ought to have been filed within two years i.e. by 28.10.2020. However, Execution Petition was filed on 19.01.2021. Be that as it may. From a reading of the Order of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred supra, it is evident that period of limitation from 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021 stands excluded. Further, where limitation would have expired during the period between 15.03.2020 till 14.03.2021, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 15.03.2021. The order of the Hon’ble Apex Court is clear and unambiguous.

¶59

¶60

Going by the Orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the same are applicable even to petitions/applications/all other proceedings also and not restricted to suits and appeals. Execution Petition being a proceeding pursuant to the decree and the E.P. filed on 19-01-2021 during the extended period of limitation, in the considered opinion of this Court, falls within two years period and as such, no notice is necessary under Rule 22 of CPC.

¶61

The argument of the learned counsel for revision petitioners that to initiate the Execution Proceedings, limitation prescribed under Article 136 of the Limitation Act is 12 years and by virtue of Hon’ble Supreme Court Order, Execution Petition can be filed after 12 years, merits no appreciation, in the attending facts and circumstances. Though, there is no dispute with regard to the legal position in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but in the light of the peculiar state of affairs due to outbreak of Covid-19 and the orders of the Hon’ble Apex Court referred to supra, the same are of no aid to the petitioners. The period of limitation, even if it is computed in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Apex Court, demonstrates that execution petitions are filed within time. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners are therefore, rejected and the point is answered accordingly against the petitioners.

¶62

¶63

So far as maintainability of Revision Petitions, an identical issue was dealt with by the composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh in K.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad’s case. The Hon’ble Division Bench concluded that an attachment order under Order XXI, Rule 54 of CPC, is a step towards sale of the property after filing sale papers, encumbrance certificate etc., and will not terminate the proceedings finally. Referring to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mohan Lal Magan Lal Thacker v. State of Gujarat⁴ , the Division Bench held that Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed the revision.

¶64

16. In the light of the legal position in K.Siva Ramakrishna Prasad’s

¶65

case and the conclusions arrived at supra, the Revision Petitions fails and the same are therefore liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶66

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications if any, pending shall stand closed.

¶67

___________________________ JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

Date: 11.10.2022

BLV

4 AIR 1968 SC 733