This court dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the impleadment of a legal representative in an execution petition regarding a tenancy decree.
The civil revision petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
THURSDAY ,THE FOURTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3010 OF 2023
Petition under Section 115 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to Pleased to set aside he orders passed in E.A. No.19/2023 in E.P,No,41/2015 in ATC No,19/1990 on P«hapuram, East Godavari at.28-08-2023 and to allow the C.R.P.
BETWEEN:-
Ramana Murthy, 54 years, Employee, R/o. Nizamabad
...PETITIONERS
AND
K/o. Kumarapuram Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.
lO.Kurri Siva Kamakshi, W/o. Satyanarayana, 34 years, Gollaprolu Village Goilaprolu Mandal, East Godavari District.
R/o. Kumarapuram Village, Pithapuram Mandal, East Godavari District.
lA NO: 1 OF 20?.?
fK Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstancesstated i n the affidavit filed i ‘ in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased leased to suspend the operation of the orders in E.A.19/2023 in E P No 41/2015 in ATC No. 19/90 dt.28-08-2023 ^he file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge's Court Pithapuram pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition.
Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. K SUBRAHMANYAM
Counsel for the Respondents:
The Court made the following ORDER:
HE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3010 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:-
- Heard Sri K. Subrahmanyam, learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.
- One Sri N. Venkata Ramana Murthy, the father of the 2^^ petitioner herein and the father-in-law of the petitioner filed A.T.C.No.19 of 1990 on the file of Special Officer for Tenancy Cases, Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram for evictionofthetenant- respondents. The said case was decreed on 31.03.2009. For execution of the decree, Sri N. Venkata Ramana Murthy filed E.P.No.41 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram. During pendency of the E.P, N. VenkataRamana Murthy died. The petitioners were impleaded in theE.Pon their application in E.A.No.20 of 2020 vide order dated 27.07.2022. It is evident from page No.21 of the paper book, that the impleadment was as legal representatives of the deceased decree holder. The respondent herein who is also the son of the deceased filed E.A.No. 19 of 2023 in E.P.No.41 of 2015 for his impleadment as legal representative. By the impugned order dated 28.08.2023,the application of the respondent has been allowed to be added the respondent also as the decree holder.
2
civil 3. Challenging the order dated 28.08.2023, the present revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Codeof Civil Procedure (C.P.C). 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order suffers from illegality inasmuch asthepresent respondent No.l, ought to have filed such an application in O.S.No.288 of 2014 which is pending at the stage oftheappeal. 5. The O.S.No.288 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram was filed by one Burra Suryavardhanidevi as the plaintiff for partition of the plaint scheduled property which included the property in A.T.C No. 19 of 1990 at ItemNo.3inthe suit. The present 1®^ respondent was also one of thedefendantsin the suit with the present petitioners, The suit was decreed declaring his share as 1/5*- The appeal, being A.S.No.38of2022 is said to be pending in the court of XII AdditionalDistrictJudge, Pithapuram. But, at this stage it cannot be said that the 1®^ respondent herein has no share when the decree in suit determines his l/S^h share. 6. It is also not in dispute that the present 2*^^ respondent herein is the deceased father of the petitioner No.2. It is also not in dispute that the 1®^ respondent is the brother ofthepetitioner No.2. Consequently, when the application of the 2’^^ petitioner herein was allowed in E.P.No.41 of 2015 and he was impleaded in
3
place of the deceased decree holder in A.T.C.No.l9 of 1990, I do not find foree in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the application for impleadment of the 1st respondent should not have been allowed. 7. The learned court considered the proeeedings of O.S.No.288 of 2014 and l/St^ share of the l^t respondent declared in the property in question. The learned Court, did not commit any illegality in arriving at the eonclusion that the 1 St respondent is the proper and necessary party in E.P.No.41 of 2015 and in allowing his application.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall standclosedin
consequence.
S/d- SHAIK MOHD RAFI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SECTION OFFICER
To,
Ssl AL
HIGH COURT
DATED:14/12/2023
ORDER
CRP.N0.3010 OF 2023
or
■■X
■o
A c;; <br>3 0 A.op 2024 5
3- C'/i
"x -sp i;
CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS DISMISSED.
'T fCA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order allowing the impleadment of a legal representative in an execution petition suffers from illegality.
Whether the inducted respondent is a proper and necessary party in the execution proceedings.
Whether the civil revision petition challenging the impleadment order has merit.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Neelakanti Rama Jyothi
Neelakanti Bhagavan Narasimha Sri Ramanadha Murthy
Neelakanti Sri Venkata Sundara Sivaji Murthy
Kurri Siva Kamakshi
Ravi Nath Tilhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
