Dismissed

Vinnakota Seshagiri v. Bobba Sambi reddy

Telangana HC24 Sept 2010CRP/4336/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common oral order dismissed two civil revision petitions filed against an order rejecting third-party claims under Section 47 CPC. The court held that the proper procedure for auction purchasers resisting execution is via Order 21 Rules 58 and 97 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision petitions dismissed at the stage of admission; liberty granted to petitioners to avail appropriate remedy.

Vinnakota Seshagiri Vs Bobba Sambi reddy — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4336 and 4339 of 2007

¶3

Date: 24.09.2010

¶4

C.R.P.No.4336 of 2007 :

¶5

Between: Vinnakota Seshagiri … Petitioner and Bobba Sambi Reddy and others. … Respondents C.R.P.No.4339 of 2007 : Between: Rudra Raju Prameela … Petitioner and Bobba Sambi Reddy and others. … Respondents

¶6

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

¶7

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4336 and 4339 of 2007

¶8

ORAL COMMON ORDER :

¶9

Since the subject matter in both the revision petitions is inter-related, with the consent of both the counsel, they are heard together and being disposed of by this common order.

¶10

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners/3^rd parties as well as the

¶11

learned counsel for respondent No.2/Decree holder.

¶12

3. The above civil revision petitions are directed against the common order, dated 18.7.2007, in G.L.Nos.13577 and 13574 in E.P.No.201 of 2003 in O.S.No.894 of 2001, passed by the III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna District, rejecting the claim petitions filed by the petitioners/3^rd parties seeking to dismiss the E.P. on the ground that they are of the auction purchasers of the suit schedule property and, therefore, the execution of the decree in the present suit cannot be ordered in the pending execution proceedings.

¶13

4. From the impugned common order passed by the Court below, it could be seen that the Court below had observed that the petition under Section 47 C.P.C. is not maintainable and, on the other hand, the proper remedy available to the petitioners would be to file an application under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C., under which the scope of adjudication of the controversy would get enlarged, on account of the fact that the petitioners are neither judgment debtors nor decree holders. The Court below also found that the petitioners are not claiming interest in the property by themselves, but through some other source. The Court below further observed that the Section 47 C.P.C. deals with the jurisdiction of the Court to go into the various facts, depending upon various objections taken by the judgment debtors.

¶14

5. In the instant case, the petitioners are not the judgment debtors. As already noticed, the petitioners are claiming their interest only through some other person, who is said to be an auction purchaser. Therefore, it was observed by the Court below that proper remedy available to the petitioners would be to file an application under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C.

¶15

6. From the facts of the case, it is to be seen that the petitioners, who are allegedly having substantial interest in the disputed property, have been claiming their interest through the auction purchaser. Therefore, virtually the petitioners are resisting the execution petition filed by the decree holder. In such cases, the Code of Civil Procedure specifically provides for a procedure under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. As already pointed out, a petition under Section 47 C.P.C. may not be the appropriate remedy available to the petitioner.

¶16

7. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is always open for the petitioners to avail the appropriate remedy as provided under the Code of Civil Procedure.

¶17

8. With the above observations, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed, at the stage of admission, with a liberty to the petitioners to workout their remedy in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶18

_______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

¶19

24.09.2010. Msr

¶20

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

¶21

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4336 and 4339 of 2007

¶22

24.09.2010 (Msr)

Vinnakota Seshagiri v. Bobba Sambi reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinnakota Seshagiri v. Bobba Sambi reddy

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

The New India Assurance Company Limited, Vs K.Raghu babu

The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs S.Ramachandra Naidu

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Ravu Koteswara Rao

Tenneti Venkata Raja Sudhakar, Vs Lakkaraju Janardhana Rao

Kaja Gangadhara Rao Vs Vajji Dasaradha Ramaiah

Rudra Raju Prameela, Vs Bobba Sami Reddy