Amina Bibi Vs Manoj Kumar Arora

¶1

APHC010186002026

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

¶3

WEDNESDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1020 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

AMINA BIBI, W/o. Late Shaik Wazeer, Aged 81 years, House Wife, R/o.D.No.11-10-27, Champagalli Street, Srikakulam Town, Srikakulam District.

¶9

...Petitioner

¶10

AND

¶11

MANOJ KUMAR ARORA, S/o. Late Lekharaj Arora, Aged 51 years. Business, R/o. Chinna Bazaar, Srikakulam Town 85 District

¶12

Yeswath Arora, S/o. Late Lekharaj Arora, Aged 46 years. Business, R/o. APHB Colony, Near Z.P., Srikakulam Town and District

¶13

Meenu Karla, D/o. Late Hamsaraju Arora, Aged 41 years, R/o. Phase II, Gali No.3, Gurgaon, Haryana

¶14

Neetu Kalda, D/o. Late Hamsaraju Arora, Aged 39 years, R/o. Ward No. 18, Mohalla, Panjabi Yoka, Srimadhopur, Seekhar, Rajasthan.

¶15

Girija Narangh, D/o. Late Hamsaraju Arora, Aged 37 years, R/o. Ward No. 18, Mohalla, Panjabi Yoka, Srimadhopur, Seekhar, Rajasthan.

¶16

Neelam Arora, S/o. Late Hamsaraju Arora, Aged 35 years, R/o. D.No. 1019-24, Near Bodamma Temple, Etcherla Street, Srikakulam Town and Dist.

¶17

Baswa Rajeswari, W/o. T.Kedhari, Aged 51 Years, R/o.D.No.15, Adanja Street, Sadhar, Ganjam, Bharahmpur District. Odisha State

¶18

...Respondents

¶19

Counsel for the Petitioner: V SUDHAKAR REDDY

¶20

Counsel for the Respondents:

¶21

2

¶22

The Court made the following ORAL ORDER (LUNCH MOTION):

¶23

Heard Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

¶24

This Civil Revision Petition is filed with the objection raised by the Registry as regards the maintainability. Admittedly, the Revision Petitioner herein is a Judgment Debtor in O.S.No.119 of 1991. The Judgment Debtor has filed E.A.No.128 of 2025 in pending E.P.No.123 of 2024 in O.S.No.119 of 1991 under Order XXI Rule 97 and 101 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C’) seeking a declaration that the Petitioner alone has right, title, possession and enjoyment over the schedule property and for all consequential reliefs. This E.A.No.128 of 2025 is dismissed by the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam on 17.03.2026 by holding that the E.A filed by the Judgment Debtor is not maintainable. The learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam has further held that the Revision Petitioner was arrayed as Defendant No.1 in O.S.No.119 of 1991 and the present E.A is filed by the said Defendant. It is therefore held by the learned Judge that the Applicant in E.A/Petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition is not a third party or stranger to the Decree but she is a party who is bound by the Decree in O.S.No.119 of 1991 as regards the contentions raised by the Petitioner herein with regard to the extent, measurements and the alleged excess inclusion of property. The learned Judge had held that these contentions could have been raised by the Defendant/Revision Petitioner during the course of trial or at the appellate proceedings but not by way of present E.A filed under XXI Rule 97 and 101 of C.P.C. The learned Judge also placed reliance on the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court titled as Pradeep Mehra Vs. Harijivan J. Jethwa in Civil Appeal No.6375 of 2023, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has considered the ambit of Section 47 of C.P.C and held that though the executing Court has the power to determine all questions relating to execution, such power cannot be exercised to examine the correctness, legality or validity of the Decree or to entertain objections which ought to have been raised in the Suit or Appellate proceedings.

¶25

3

¶26

Having so recorded, the learned Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srikakulam was pleased to dismiss the E.A.No.128 of 2025 filed by the Revision Petitioner herein. This Court having perused the reasoning given in the Impugned Order and also the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, is of the view that the objections raised by the Registry as regards the maintainability of the present Civil Revision Petition are valid. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No Order as to Costs.

¶27