Asha Maritime [India] Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai Vs M/S Sree Rayalaseema Hi-Strangth Hypo Ltd., Kurnool & 5

M/S SREE RAYALASEEMA HISTRANGTH HYPO LTD KURNOOL 5, COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT GONDIPARLA, KURNOOL, REP. BY IS CHAIRMAN 86 MANAGING DIRECTOR, T.G. BHARATH.

¶16

DE BEST MARITIME PRIVATE LIMITED, REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED AGENT, BOMBAY, MUTUAL CHAMBERS, ROOM NO. 11, BUILDING NO. 19/12, AMBALA DOSHI MARG, MUMBAI.

¶17

DE BEST MARITIME PRIVATE LIMITED, JAYSWAL MANSION, 3RD FLOOR, FLAT NO. 12/45/1, R.A. KIDWAI ROAD, CALCUTTA.

¶18

EAST INDIA LINES LIMITED, MANAGED BY BAZUNISTRAAT 24, 5802/J.V. VENRAY, THE NETHERLANDS.

¶19

SCAN OCEAN, SCAN OCCAN LINES LIMITED, MANAGED BY DE BEST MARITIME PRIVATE LIMITED, BAZUINSTRAAT 24, J.V. VENRAY, THE NETHERLANDS.

¶20

EMERALD SIPPING SERVICE LIMITED, 19/21, BOMBAY, MUTUAL

¶21

2

¶22

CHAMBERS ROOM NO.11, FORT MUMBAI.

¶23

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶24

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 toto set aside the Orders dated 02.12.2016 in 1.A.NO. 360/2016 in E.P.No. 164/2016 in O.S.No.7/2001 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni in the interest of justice.

¶25

IA NO: 1 OF 2017(CRPMP 2315 OF 2017

¶26

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 condone the delay of 21 days in filing the CRP in the circumstances of the case

¶27

IA NO: 2 OF 2017(CRPMP 2316 OF 2017

¶28

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 stay of all further proceedings in EP NO.164/2016 in OS No.7/2001 pending before II Additioal District Judge, Kurool at Adoni now by way of transfer before Bombay City Civil Court at Bombay till the disposal of the main CRP in the circumstances of the case

¶29

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶30

1.SHARAD SANGHI

¶31

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶32

1.ALLADI RAVINDER

¶33

The Court made the following:

¶34

3

¶35

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶36

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1751/2017

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside the orders dated 02.12.2016 in I.A.No.360 of 2016 in E.P.No.164 of 2016 in O.S.No.7 of 2001 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Adoni.

¶39

When the matter is taken up for hearing, it is observed from the docket sheet that on 16.06.2026 and 29.06.2026, there was no representation for the petitioner. On 29.06.2026 the matter was posted to today under the caption ‘For Dismissal’. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submits that E.P.No.164 of 2016 is filed on the file of Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Mumbai. He further submits that the court below rightly dismissed the IA filed seeking to grant stay of all further proceedings in the execution petition, which is pending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai and rightly expressed the jurisdiction of the Court.

¶42

For consideration of the present Revision Petition, certainly, this Court have no jurisdiction to direct or to stay the proceedings pending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai. Therefore, even on merits the orders of the court

¶43

4

¶44

below does not warrant any interference of this Court. As claimed by the petitioner, pending Suit, EP cannot be executed. Further the petition under Order 21 Rule 29 not applicable.

¶45

Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and on perusal of the material placed on record, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity on part of the court below. Moreover, this Court have not vested with any jurisdiction to stay the proceedings of the EP which are pending before the City Civil Court, Mumbai.

¶46