Partly allowed

Saji Srinivasa Raju v. Vivid Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Limited

Andhra Pradesh HC7 Dec 2023CRP/2268/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single bench disposed of five civil revision petitions contesting dismissal of claim petitions filed by subsequent purchasers of flats subject to sale in execution proceedings. The court set aside the lower court's default orders and remanded the matter to the executing court for fresh consideration of the claim petitions despite confirmation of sale.

What did the court decide?

The docket proceedings of the executing court dismissing the petitions for setting aside the order are set aside. The matter is remanded to the executing court to go into the issues raised in the rest

Saji Srinivasa Raju Vs Vivid Hotels and… — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2267, 2268, 2269, 2271 & 2272 of 2023

¶2

COMMON ORDER:

¶3

As the issues raised in all these cases are relating to a common case they are being disposed of by way of this common order.

¶4

The 1^st respondent herein had filed O.S.No.215 of 2011 on the file of the Learned V Additional District Judge, Tirupati for recovery of money and the same was decreed on 01.07.2016. It appears that an Appeal was filed against the

¶5

said Judgment/Decree by way of A.S.No.141 of 2017. An interim stay of Execution of the said Judgment/Decree was granted by this Court on condition of payment of half the decretal amount with costs. As the said payment was not done, the interim stay stood vacated.

¶6

Thereafter, the 1^st respondent had moved the Executing Court by way of an O.E.P.No.26 of 2017. In this petition, the 1^st respondent/decree holder sought attachment and sale of certain flats which are belong to the Judgment debtor.

¶7

¶8

At that stage, persons residing in those flats

¶9

approached the Executing Court by way of claim petitions bearing E.A.Nos.383, 384 & 402 of 2022 in O.E.P.No.26 of 2017 in O.S.No.215 of 2011 respectively contending that they have purchased the said flats from the Judgment debtor by way of registered deeds of sale which are preceded by way of un-registered agreements of sale and that their claims over the respective flats be decided before any further steps are taken to sell the flats.

¶10

These applications were dismissed for default and the respective petitioners had moved applications for setting aside the default order. The said applications were also returned on the ground that the sale of the property had been confirmed and as such the claim petitions would not be maintainable.

¶11

Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners have

¶12

approached this Court by way of the present Civil Revision Petitions.

¶13

¶14

Heard Sri M. Rahul, learned counsel appearing

¶15

for the petitioners and Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/decree holder.

¶16

The contention of Sri M. Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the confirmation of sale would not preclude consideration of the claim petitions of the petitioners as they were subsisting as on the date when the sale had been confirmed by the Executing Court.

¶17

Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/decree holder on the other hand would contend that once sale has been confirmed, nothing further survives in the claim petitions and as such, the petitions have been rendered infructuous and mere restoration of the petitions would not in any manner assist the petitioners. He further contends that even the sale certificates have been issued to the subsequent purchasers in the auction conducted by the Executing Court.

¶18

Sri Turaga Sai Surya, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/decree holder would also contend that the in view of the completion of the sale process, the remedies available to the petitioners would only be under Order 21

¶19

¶20

Rule 99 of Civil Procedure Code and the present applications are under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code would not survive.

¶21

In the circumstances, the docket proceedings of the Executing Court returning the above applications filed for setting aside the ex-parte orders are set aside and the matters are remanded back to the Executing Court to go into the issues raised above and all such other issues that may be raised before the Executing Court in relation to the restoration petitions.

¶22

Registry is also directed to return the original applications filed by the petitioners before the Trial Court which were available in these bundles here.

¶23

Accordingly, these Civil Revision Petitions are allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶24

R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶25

07.12.2023 BSM/KPV

¶26

¶27

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶28

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2267, 2268, 2269, 2271, 2272 of 2023

¶29

07.12.2023

¶30

BSM/KPV

Saji Srinivasa Raju v. Vivid Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saji Srinivasa Raju v. Vivid Hotels and Resorts Pvt. Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pasam Venkateswarlu, Vs Sri. Sashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S

Korimisetty Yerraiah, Vs Sri. Sashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S

Kota Devid, Vs Sri. Sashi Bhushan Kumar, I.A.S

Kuntala Peddagangadhar Vs Sri Sasibhushan Kumar I.A.S

M/S Chetan Construction Vs Sri Sasibhushan Kumar, IAS

Smt. Sujathamma Vs a.Chowde Gowdu (died)