Dismissed

Pithani Chandra Rao, E.G.Dist v. Kaki Padmavathi, E.G.Dist

Andhra Pradesh HC17 Sept 2024CRP/3594/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judgment debtor challenged dismissal of his application to set aside an order forfeiting his right to file counter in execution proceedings. Court found he was aware of the proceedings, having attended his wife's cross-examination, and dismissed the revision, directing the executing court to conclude within three months.

What did the court decide?

None granted; liberty to apply to deposit entire decretal amount before the Executing Court, which shall consider it on merits as per law.

Pithani Chandra Rao, E.G.Dist Vs Kaki… — Execution and Attachment | Andhra Pradesh HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY .THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶4

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3594 OF 2013

¶5

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, filed against the Order passed in EA No. 224/2013 in EP No. 28/2009 in OS No. 240/2008. dated 19.06.2013 on the file of court of the Senior Civil Judge. Ramachandrapuram. East Godavari District

¶6

Between:

¶7

Pithani Chandra Rao. S/o. Subba Rao R/o. Dangeru Village K.Gangavaram Mandal. East Godavari District ...PETITIONER

¶8

AND

¶9

Kaki Padmavathi, W/o. V.V.S.N. Murthy R/o.Vasalarevu H/o. Dangeru Village K. Gangavaram Mandal. East Godavari District

¶10

...RESPONDENT

¶11

I.A. NO: 1 OF 2013fCRPMP. NO: 4808 OF 2013)

¶12

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in EP No. 28/2009 in OS No. 240/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge. Ramachandrapu ram. East Godavari District

¶13

Counsel for the Petitioner ^ ^ : SRI. SIVA BHAMI REDDY S counsel for the Respondents: SRI. BVSS BALAKRISHNA RANJIT The Court made the following ORDER:

¶14

APHC010629692013

¶15

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶16

[3331]

¶17

WEDNESDAY ,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶18

PRESENT

¶19

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI

¶20

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3594/2013

¶21

Between:

¶22

Pithani Chandra Rao, East Godavari District. ...PETITIONER

¶23

AND

¶24

Kaki Padmavathi, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT

¶25

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶26

1.SIVA BHAMI REDDY S

¶27

Counsel for the Respondent:

¶28

1.BVSS BALAKRISHNA RANJIT

¶29

The Court made the following ORDER:

¶30

The above civil revision petition is filed assailing the order dated 19.06,2013 in E.A.No.224 of 2013 in E.P.No.28 of 2009 in O.S.No.240 of 2008 on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram,^EastGodavari District.

¶31

2.‘ The revision petitioner is the Judgment Debtor. The Decree Holder, filed the suit O.S.No.24o of 2008 for recovery of amount from the revision

¶32

Page 2 of 6

¶33

SRS, J Crp_3594_2013

¶34

petitioner. The said suit was decreed on 20.01.2009 for an amount of Rs.1,40,604/-. The Decree Holder filed E.P.No.28 of^{2009underOrder21} Rules 11, 54, 66 & 67. The Judgment Debtor failed to file counter in the execution petition, despite the opportunity. The Executing Court by order dated 09.04.2010 forfeited the right of Judgment Debtor to file counter affidavit. The Judgment Debtor filed E.A.No.224 of^{2013on09.04.2013,under} Section 151 of CPC to set aside the forfeiting order^{dated09.04.2010.}

¶35

In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it was contended, inter alia, that the petitioner, due to loss in business went to Vizag and hence, could not file the counter-affidavit. The petitioner came^{toknowabouttheauction} through paper publication. The properties belonged^{towifeandmotherwas} brought to sale. Hence, this application is filed.

¶36

The Decree Holder filed counter-affidavit in E.A.No.224 of 2013. The Executing Court by order dated 19.06.2013 dismissed the Execution Application. Against the same, the above civil revision petition is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the petitioner, due to loss in business went to Vizag and^{hence,couldnotfilethe} counter-affidavit. He would submit that the properties belonged to wife and mother was attached.

Page 3 of 6

SRS, J Crp_3594_2013

The point for consideration is:

¶42

Whether the order dated 19.06.2013 in E.A.No.224 of 2013 in E.P.No.28 of 2009 in O.S.No.240 of 2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram warrants interference?

¶43

As seen from the material available on record, the suit filed by the respondent herein/Decree Holder for recovery of amount^was decreed on 20.01.2009. E.P.No.28 of 2009 was filed in the year^{2009underOrder21} Rules 11, 54, 66 & 67 of CPC. The wife of the petitioner^{filedE.A.No.259of} 2010 in the E.P and the said claim petition was dismissed.

¶44

The petitioner attended the Court during cross-examination^ofherwife and the same was recorded by the Court in the order impugned. Thus, the petitioner is aware of the execution proceedings. In fact, the wife of the revision petitioner deposed in E.A.No.259 of 2010 that her husband brought her to the Court; they are living under one roof. P.W.2^{wasalsoexamined} in claim petition. After considering the entire evidence^{onrecord,thesaidclaim} petition was dismissed. Thus, the petitioner is closely watching the proceedings.t The contention of the revision petitioner^{thathecouldnkfile} counter-affidavit due to non-availability is only a cooked up story to further procrastinate the execution proceedings.

¶45

As discussed supra, the suit was decreed on 20.01.2009. Despite the decree, even after 15 years, the Decree Holder is yet enjoying the fruits of the

¶46

Page 4 of 6

¶47

SRS, J Crp_3594_2013

¶48

decree. While granting interim order on 16.08.2013 the revision petitioner ISi directed to deposit half of the E.P amount, however the amount was not deposited. There are no merits in the revision and the revision petition ISi: liable to be dismissed. It is needless to mention that the Executing Court shall expedite the proceedings and conclude the same preferably^within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the^order.

¶49

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶50

At this juncture, learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the revision petitioner is ready to deposit the entire decretal amount payable as on today in four weeks. It is open to the revision petitioner to make an appropriate application by depositing the decretal amount before the Executing Court. If such an application is filed, the Executing Court shall consider the same on merits as per law.

¶51

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

¶52

SDfr U. SRIDEVI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶53

To,

¶54

SECTION OFFICER

¶55

I' Hno o' f^^f^achandrapuram. East Godavari District One CC to Sri Siva Bhami Reddy S Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri BVSS Balakrishna Ranjit Advocate [OPUCl 4. The Section Officer, VR Section. High court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati. 5. Two CD Copies psr PRK

HIGH COURT

DATED:18/09/2024

ORDER

CRP.No.3594 of 2013

AND/^
X 0 2 JAN 20?fi
o. w'
^ . Current Section
v

¶61

DISMISSING THE CRP

Pithani Chandra Rao, E.G.Dist v. Kaki Padmavathi, E.G.Dist

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pithani Chandra Rao, E.G.Dist v. Kaki Padmavathi, E.G.Dist

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

Nuthangi Seetha Ramamma, Vs The State of A.P

S Raju Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

B Polaiah Vs the State of Ap

Shaik Nanne Saheb Vs the State of Ap

K Venkateswarlu Vs the State of Ap

J Amaramma Vs the State of Ap