Dismissed

Kanamaluri Krishnamurthy, v. Y.Sivaiah

Telangana HC15 Jul 2011CRP/2480/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition challenging an order allowing execution sale of Schedule Properties in a money suit. The Court held that the petitioner's claim that the property is Government assigned land was made without supporting material for the first time during execution. Finding no illegality, the revision was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.

Kanamaluri Krishnamurthy, Vs Y.Sivaiah — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2480 OF 2011

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

Challenging the order, dated 10.3.2011 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupathi in E.P.No.95 of 2010 in O.S.No.8 of 2005, the present civil revision petition is filed.

¶4

Originally, the respondent-Decree Holder filed the suit for recovery of Rs.85,866/- on the foot of a promissory note executed by the petitioner-Judgment Debtor agreeing to repay the same. As the petitioner-Judgment debtor failed to repay the same, the respondentDecree Holder filed the suit and obtained decree. During the pendency of the suit, the schedule property had been attached in I.A.No.21 of 2005 on 19.1.2005 and attachment effected on 8.2.2005. As the petitioner-Judgment debtor failed to discharge the decretal amount, the decree holder filed the above E.P., under Order 21 Rule 64 and 66 CPC for sale of the E.P. schedule property. The Court below allowed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision is filed by the Judgment Debtor.

¶5

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Perused the material available on record.

¶6

On a perusal of the material on record, it is clear that in the above E.P., the judgment debtor has taken a plea that the EP schedule property is the Government assigned land and the decree holder has no right to claim the same in the above E.P. It is also clear that the judgment debtor had taken the said plea for the first time in the execution proceedings. Except making such bald statement that the

¶7

attached property is Government assgined land, he did not adduce any material either before the executing Court or this Court.

¶8

The schedule property was attached in I.A.No.21 of 2005 in the suit on 19.1.2005 and attachment effected on 8.2.2005 and the same was made absolute on 14.11.2006. From the material on record, it is clear that during the course of attachment proceedings, nobody claimed the schedule property. Further, the judgment debtor did not place any material in support of his contention that the attached property is Government assigned land. In this view of the matter, I have no hesitation to hold that the order of the Court below does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court and hence, the revision is liable to be dismissed.

¶9

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶10

__________________ Justice N.V. Ramana

¶11

Date:15^th July, 2011 Nn.

¶12

HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA

¶13

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:2480 OF 2011

¶14

15.7.2011

¶15

Kanamaluri Krishnamurthy, v. Y.Sivaiah

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanamaluri Krishnamurthy, v. Y.Sivaiah

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

T.Ramadevi, Vs Dama Dhana Lakshmi

Pattana Abhivridhi Nivesana Sthalamula Yajamanula Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal

Pattana Abhivridhi Nivesana Sthalamula Yajamanula Vs Sri Y.S.Prasad

Gollapalle Madhusudana Reddy, Vs K.Krishna Murthy

N.Venkateswara Rao Vs Sri P.Venkata Rami Reddy

Vankadhara Bharathi, Vs Smt. N.Padma Priya