Allowed

Kasim Tirumala Devi, v. Meka Sarojini

Telangana HC26 Mar 2010CRP/5295/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge allowed three civil revisions challenging execution orders. He found the lower court failed to properly consider a Commissioner's report on common property issues and directed a rehearing to pass appropriate orders.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders were set aside and the court below was directed to consider the matter afresh on merits after hearing both sides.

Kasim Tirumala Devi, Vs Meka Sarojini — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO ON BEING MENTIONED

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5291, 5292 and 5295 of 2008

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

Heard both sides and at their request these three revisions are taken up together for disposal at the admission stage.

¶5

The petitioner in all these three revisions is the judgment debtor in three different execution proceedings ensued by the first respondent-decree holder, in pursuance of three different decrees obtained by him, for recovery of money by selling the scheduled property. The petitioner submits that he filed objections and a Commissioner was appointed in that regard and that the Commissioner’s report was in her favour stating that the property was common property. The case of the petitioner is that having regard to such nature of the property, it would not have been brought to sale.

¶6

On considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and also perusing the material on record, it is seen that though the Court below did take into consideration the report of the Commissioner, it sought to apply the same in a restricted way. Having regard to the question involved about the commonness of the passage and the pathway, it cannot be said that such report would not have any weight and for considering such aspect, it can also be used for the purpose other than noting down the physical features. Therefore, necessarily the report has to say on the aspects in regard to the usage of passage - ingress and egress, including the common or exclusive usage thereof, and the impugned orders are not reflecting proper consideration of the material on record.

¶7

In the circumstances, it is felt desirable that the matter should be re-heard afresh and orders be passed after hearing both sides and considering the entire material on record. Therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be set aside.

¶8

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the impugned orders, which are of the same date i.e., 05.09.2008 passed in E.P.No.85 of 2006 in O.S.No.359 of 1998, E.P.No.95 of 2006 in O.S.No.358 of 1998 and E.P.No.96 of 2006 in O.S.No.546 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, are set aside and the Court below is directed to consider the matters afresh on merits after hearing both sides and considering the objections raised and other material available on record, and to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. No order as to costs.

¶9

___________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J

¶10

26^th March, 2010 GHN

Kasim Tirumala Devi, v. Meka Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kasim Tirumala Devi, v. Meka Sarojini

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bude Venkateswara Rao Vs Kapa Arjuna Rao

Kukkamalla Jakraiah Vs Koti Venkateswarlu

P.Parvathi Alias Lakshmi Parvathi, Vs v.v.S.Lakshmi

Kancherla Paddaiah Vs Konda Kalidasu Padma Krishna

Nalluri Subba Rao Vs Match Penchalaiah

Raja Kasaiah Vs Nagasarapu Rama Mohana Rao