Shaik Tajuddin Vs Sistla Rama Krishna Somayaji

¶1

APHC010252022023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3333] (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

FRIDAY, T HE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO T H OUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1402/2023

¶6

Between:

¶7

SHAIK TAJUDDIN, S /O.LATE SATTAR SAHEB, AGED A BOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.D.NO. 8 -48, LOCK ROAD, KANKIPADU, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶8

SHAIK AHMED BA S HEER, SHAIK TAJUDDIN, S/O.LAT E SATTAR SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.8-48, LO C K ROAD, KANKIPADU, KRISH N A DISTRICT.

¶9

SHAIK MOHAMMED KHASIM, SHAIK TAJUDDIN, S/O.LAT E SATTAR SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.8-48, LO C K ROAD, KANKIPADU, KRISH N A DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

SISTLA RAMA K R ISHNA SOMAYAJI, S/O.GOPAL KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED A BOUT 56 YEARS, R/O.SURYAN A RAYANA STREET, SURYARA O PET, VIJAYAWADA, KRISHNA DIST R ICT.

¶13

MOKKAPATI ARUN A SRI, D/O.GOPAL KRISHNA MURT H Y, AGED ABOUT 52 Y E ARS, R/O.SURYANARAYANA STREET, SURYARAOPET, VIJ A YAWADA, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶14

SHAIK SATTAR SAH E B DIED, A

¶15

SHAIK MOTHI JAAN, W/O.SHAIK SATTAR, AGED ABOUT 7 6 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.8-48, LOC K ROAD, KANKIPADU, KRISHNA DIS T RICT.

¶16

2

¶17

VS, J CRP No.1402 of 2023

¶18

SHAIK HUSSAIN BI, W/O.JANI SAHEB, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O.KRISHNARAOPALEM VILLAGE, A. KONDURU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶19

SHAIK NOORJAHAN, W/O.KHASIM ALI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.6-17, TADIKONDA VILLAGE, TADIKONDA MANDAL, GUNTUR DISTRICT.

¶20

SHAIK GULJAR, W/O.ATAULLAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, D.NO.449, KOLAVENU VILLAGE, KANKIPADU MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶21

SHAIK MUSTHAK BEGUM, W/O.MASTHAN SHARIF, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.19-919-77, GANJIPALEM, CHIRALA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

¶22

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶23

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the Order dt. 15-04-2023 in E.A.No.157of 2022 in E.A.No.63 of 2019 in unnumbered EP in O.S.No.165 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Ist Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna District

¶24

Counsel for the Petitioner(S):

¶25

1.SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY

¶26

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶27

1.PILLIX LAW FIRM

¶28

The Court made the following:

¶29

3

¶30

VS, J CRP No.1402 of 2023

¶31

ORDER:

¶32

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders dated 15.04.2023 in E.A.No.157 of 2022 in E.A.No.63 of 2019 in unnumbered E.P in O.S.No.165 of 2002 passed by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada, Krishna, allowing the petition filed for reviewing the order dated 07.04.2022 in E.A.No.63 of 2019 whereby permission was granted to implead the Judgment Debtors 5 to 9 as legal representatives of the deceased Judgment debtor.

¶33

The revision petitioners herein are the judgment debtor Nos.2, 3 and 4 and the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the decree holders and respondent Nos. 4 to 8 are proposed legal representatives of respondent No.3. The facts of the case which led to filing of the present revision are that the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 herein are absolute owners of the petition schedule property and the judgment debtors are the tenants. The respondents filed O.S.No.165 of 2002 against the revision petitioners for eviction of the judgment debtors and for delivery of vacant possession of the property. The said suit was decreed on 29.10.2010. As judgment debtor No.1 is died, the respondents herein filed E.A.No.63 of 2019 seeking impleadment of judgment debtors 5 to 9 as legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor. The said petition was dismissed on 07.04.2022 holding that the petition is not maintainable since main E.P. was already dismissed as Not Pressed and no valid purpose would be served in allowing the petition, as it is the contrary to

¶34

4

¶35

VS, J CRP No.1402 of 2023

¶36

the orders dated 22.09.2017. Aggrieved by the said order dated 07.04.2022, the respondents/decree holders filed E.A.No.157 of 2022 seeking review of the orders dated 07.04.2022. The said petition was allowed by reviewing the order dated 07.04.2022 passed in E.A.No.63 of 2019, consequently, allowed E.A.No.63 of 2019 filed for impleadment of the legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtors. Assailing the said order, the present Civil Revision Petition came to be filed.

¶37

Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶38

Learned counsel for the respondents/decree holders brought to the notice of this Court that, initially they have filed E.P No.226 of 2010 which was dismissed on 22.09.2017 as NOT PRESSED. Thereafter, they have filed another Execution Petition on 20.12.2018, and the same was not numbered due to certain office objections. Later it was re-submitted on 08.09.2020 along with E.A.No.63 of 2019 and the same was dismissed on 07.04.2022, later they filed E.A.No.157 of 2022. But, the Executing Court passed orders on 15.04.2023 in E.A.No.157 of 2022 in E.A.No.63 of 2019 in the said unnumbered E.P which is under challenge before this Court . Further, on the same day i.e., on 15.04.2023, E.P was also numbered as E.P No.41 of 2023.

¶39

On perusal of the material on record, considering the fact that an error apparent on the face of the record was occurred while passing orders in

¶40

5

¶41

VS, J CRP No.1402 of 2023

¶42

E.A.No.63 of 2019 by the Executing Court, this court is of the considered view

¶43

that the reasons assigned for reviewing the order are justified and well founded. However, since no orders are passed in the unnumbered Execution Petition, which was later numbered as E.A.No.41 of 2023, the respondents/judgment debtors are at liberty to file an application to bring legal representatives of the deceased judgment debtor No.1 on record by filing fresh E.A in the said E.P No.41 of 2023.

¶44

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the executing court to make every endeavour to dispose of E.P.No.41 of 2023 which is pending consideration for the past two years, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶45

As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also

stand closed.

V.SUJATHA, J

JLSR

Date: 05.12.2025.