Dismissed

Ch.Sanjeeva Rao v. Nimmagadda Nageswara Rao

Telangana HC27 Jan 2011CRP/4886/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this revision petition against an order adjourning an execution sale to grant the judgment-debtor time for payment, the single judge dismissed the petition. The court held that the revision was untenable as the judgment-debtor had already gained over eight years of time through the petition and interim stay orders. No further extension of time was justified.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

Ch.Sanjeeva Rao Vs Nimmagadda Nageswara Rao — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4886 OF 2002

¶3

DATED: 27-01-2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Cherukuri Sanjeeva Rao.

¶6

.... PETITIONER

¶7

And

¶8

Nimmagadda Nageswara Rao.

¶9

.... RESPONDENT

¶10

ORDER:

¶11

This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 11-10-2002, in E.P.No.43 of 2002 in O.S.No.109 of 1994 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the sale is adjourned on petition filed by the judgment-debtor.

¶12

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record.

¶13

3. There cannot be any grievance for the judgmentdebtor that can be adjudicated by way of revision over the impugned order inasmuch as by the said order, the Execution Court merely adjourned the sale on a petition filed by the judgment-debtor and granted time for payment of the E.P. amount. This Court, by order, dated 24-102002, in C.M.P.No.20282 of 2002 granted interim stay, subject to the condition of the judgment-debtor paying 1/3^rd of the decretal amount and balance amount in two monthly instalments. Subsequently, by order, dated 2904-2003, in C.M.P.No.27174 of 2002, this Court extended time for payment by two weeks with a further direction that if the amount is not deposited as directed, the earlier order in C.M.P.No.20282 of 2002 stands withdrawn. Now, after a lapse of more than eight years, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks time for ascertaining whether the interim order is complied with or not. The said request for

¶14

adjournment is totally untenable. By filing the Civil Revision Petition and obtaining interim order of stay, the judgment-debtor has gained more than eight years’ time for payment of the decretal amount. There are absolutely no valid or justifiable grounds to grant any further extension of time for payment of the decretal amount as more than sufficient time is already gained by the judgment-debtor by filing the Civil Revision Petition. There are absolutely no merits in this Civil Revision Petition.

¶15

4. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶16

_______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

¶17

25^th January, 2011. Tsy

Ch.Sanjeeva Rao v. Nimmagadda Nageswara Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ch.Sanjeeva Rao v. Nimmagadda Nageswara Rao

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

Syeda Fathima Begum Vs Mir Fazle Ali Khan

Brijigopal Asawa Vs Jaikishan Asawa

Boddu Yohan, Vs The Secretary, Csi Krishna Godavari Diocese

K.Mohan Vs State Bank of Hyderabad

Chikka Nagaratnam, Vs Mangalampalli Kamakumari

D.Venkat Kishan Rao, Vs Central Bank of India, Hanumakonda