Bandi Ramesh Chowdary Vs Marella Kotilingam

BANDI RAMESH CHOWDARY, S/O GOPAIAH CHOWDARY, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC BUSINESS, PARTNER IN SWARNA SREE FINANCE CORPORATION, R/O B.R. RESIDENCY, RAJEEV NAGAR, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

MARELLA KOTILINGAM, S/O VSNKAIAH, AGED ABOUT 96 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.401, ANKAMMAN THALLI APARTMENT, REVENUE COLONY, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶13

MARELLA MARUTHI PRASADA RAO, S/O KOTILINGAM, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, R/O FLAT NO.401, ANKAMMAN THALLI APARTMENT, REVENUE COLONY, ONGOLE TOWN, PRAKASAM DISTRICT.

¶14

GURIJALA SRILAKSHMI, W/O SUDHAKAR NAIDU AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/O INDUKURIPET VILLAGE AND MANDAL, SPSR NELLORE DISTRICT.

¶15

BATTINA RADHA DEVI, W/O RAMESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/O LAKSHMIPURAM, GUNTUR TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶16

NAGANDLA MADHAVI LATHA, W/O GOPICHAND, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/O ARUNDALPET, GUNTUR TOWN AND DISTRICT.

¶17

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶18

2

¶19

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 topleased to set-aside the impugned order dt. 14.11.2025 passed in E.A. CFR.No.2988 of 2025 in E.P.No.390 of 2021 in P.L.C.No. 270 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Ongole and to pass

¶20

IA NO: 1 OF 2026

¶21

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 pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.A. CFR.No.2988 of 2025 in E.P. No. 390 of 2021 in P.L.C. No. 270 of 2016, and stay all further proceedings pursuant thereto, pending disposal of the accompanying Civil Revision Petition, and pass

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶23

1.Alapati Vivekananda

¶24

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶25

¶26

The Court made the following:

¶27

3

¶28

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

¶29

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 256/2026

¶30

ORDER:-

¶31

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.A.CFR.No.2988 of 2025 in E.P.No.390 of 2021 in P.L.C.No.270 of 2016 on the file of the Principle District Judge, Ongole.

¶32

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. As issuance of notices to the respondents is not necessary in this matter, hence notices to the respondents are hereby dispensed with. Perused the material on record.

¶33

The petitioner herein is a judgment debtor and the respondents herein are decree holders in Execution Petition.

¶34

The case of the petitioner herein is that while the proceedings are going on in E.P.No.390 of 2021 in P.L.C.No.270 of 2016, his counsel did not call for adducing any evidence on his behalf, thereby the trial Court was pleased to treat that there is no evidence on his behalf since there was no representation for reporting any evidence on his side. In fact, on 27.03.2025, the petitioner/J.Dr was not in town, he went to Pamur on his personal work, at that relevant time, learned counsel for the petitioner also did not attend court on that day. Further, the petitioner/J.Dr., has good grounds to succeed in his case, thereby he filed reopen petition and a petition to receive documents along with his chief-examination affidavit on 07.04.2025, but the same were returned on 08.04.2025 and orders pronounced in E.P.No.390 of 2021 was

¶35

4

¶36

also pronounced on 08.04.2025. It is further contended that, the decree holder has no case at all and he obtained the impugned award by fraud, misrepresentation and suppression of fact. Hence, the petitioner/J.Dr prayed to allow the application affording an opportunity to the petitioner/J.Dr., to substantiate his contention in all material aspects. But the executing court without considering the same, passed an impugned order dated 14.11.2025 in E.A.CFR.No.2988 of 2025. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 27.03.2025, due to personal pressed work, the petitioner and his counsel not represented the matter and did not adduce any evidence in E.P.No.390 of 2021 before the Execution Court. Since, the matter is posted for examination of the petitioner herein, the court below erroneously treated the evidence on behalf of the petitioner/J.Dr as nill and pronounced the orders in E.P.No.390 of 2021 on 08.04.2025. Immediately, the petitioner filed application under Order 21 Rule 106 and Section 151 of CPC., seeking to set aside the impugned order dated 08.04.2025 passed in E.P.No.390 of 2021 in PLC No.270 of 2016 explaining the reasons for not attending the court on particularly day i.e, on 27.03.2025.

¶38

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. It is observed that if the petitioner/J.Dr., is under opinion that the award passed in PLC No.270 of 2016 dated 02.01.2017 in favor of D.Hr due to fraud, misrepresentation and suppression of facts, the same can be agitated before appropriate forum for setting aside the award dated 02.01.2017. The fact remains that award was passed in PLC No.270 of 2016

¶39

5

¶40

dated 02.01.2017 by following due procedure, after appearance and after consent of the petitioner/J.Dr and respondent/D.Hr on 02.01.2017. It is settled proposition of law that once an award is passed in PLC under the provisions of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it became final between the parties. In the present case in hand, the award was passed on 02.01.2017 and it became final. Except stating that in E.A.CFR.No.2988 of 2025 in E.P.No.390 of 2021, the J.Dr never stated that the award was obtained by the D.Hrs., by playing fraud or misrepresentation and suppression of facts. If the D.Hrs., were misrepresented for obtaining any award, the petitioner/J.DR has ample opportunity to sought for setting aside of the award by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court. But for one reason or the other, except stating that, he did not take any steps to that effect. On the other hand, the award became final. It is settled proposition of law that once an award passed under the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, it is to be as good as decree and judgment. Therefore, D.Hrs., in whose favour the award was passed with the consent of both parties, are vested with rights to enforce the award as like decree by filing Execution Petition under CPC. If that is so, the respondents/D.Hrs., filed E.P.No.390 of 2021, wherein the petitioner herein/J.Dr., was provide ample opportunity to adduce evidence in enquiry. It cannot be said that the Execution Court dismissed the application of the petitioner/J.Dr., without assigning any reasons, even though the petitioner explained due reason for his absence and his counsel. It is observed that the Execution Court provided ample opportunity, but many times the Presiding

¶41

6

¶42

Officer is on leave. Therefore, another opportunity can be provided to the petitioner by imposing costs instead of passing orders rejecting the claim/petition of the petitioner/J.Dr on 08.04.2025. As far as finding of the Execution Court is concerned, the Execution Court has no jurisdiction to deal with award. Even though it is contended by the petitioner that the award was obtained by playing fraud, misrepresentation and suppression of facts, but it is not in accordance with law to proceed further, since the award is valid and enforceable as per the provisions of the Act. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to dispose of the Civil Revision Petition.

¶43

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of by setting aside the order passed on 14.11.2025 by directing the Execution Court to reopen the matter and to provide opportunity to the petitioner for his examination and to proceed further in accordance with law. Further, the Petitioner/J.Dr., shall cooperate and adduce evidence before the court below without requesting any adjournment whenever the matter is posted for his evidence. If the petitioner/J.Dr., sought for any adjournment even though the matter posted for evidence, the Execution Court is at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶44

As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶45

¶46

VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J

03.02.2026 TPS

7

234