Disposed

Bharathula Sridevi v. Kommuri Purnachandra Rao

Telangana HC26 Dec 2011CRP/5260/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Revision petition challenging issuance of sale notice despite pending application to recall warrant of attachment. Court set aside impugned order directing lower court to dispose pending application first.

What did the court decide?

Set aside order dated 28.10.2011; directed lower court to decide pending application for recall of attachment and sale notice after hearing both parties.

Bharathula Sridevi Vs Kommuri Purnachandra Rao — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2011)

¶1

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶2

Civil Revision Petition No. 5260 of 2011

¶3

Date: 26.12.2011

¶4

Between:

¶5

Bharathula Sridevi

¶6

… Petitioner And

¶7

Kommuri Purnachandra Rao and another

¶8

… Respondents

¶9

HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5260 of 2011

¶10

O R D E R :

¶11

This revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2011 in E.P.No.69 of 2010 in O.S.No.391 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

¶12

The facts in brief are as under:

¶13

The 1^st respondent herein filed O.S.No.391 of 2004 for recovery of money against the 2^nd respondent herein and the same was decreed as prayed for. The 1^st respondent herein filed E.P.No.69 of 2010 for realization of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of the E.P. Schedule property. While the execution proceedings are pending, the revision petitioner, who is the daughter of the judgment debtor/2^nd respondent herein filed E.A.No.33 of 2011 under Order XXI Rules 97 & 101 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to recall the warrant of attachment. By order dated 28.10.2011 E.A.No.33 of 2011 was adjourned to 12.12.2011 on the ground that the petitioner was not ready. However, on the same day in E.P.No.69 of 2010 sale notice was issued by the Court below recording the absence of the Judgment debtor/2^nd respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.12.2011 in E.P.No.69 of 2010, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner in E.A.No.33 of 2011.

¶14

I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent-decree holder.

¶15

Admittedly, E.A.No.33 of 2011 is pending. In fact, the order under revision itself shows that the Court was aware of the pendency of the said petition filed questioning the very maintainability of the execution proceedings.

¶16

In the circumstances, the Court below ought to have considered and disposed of E.A.No.33 of 2011 in the first instance. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while keeping the said application if the Court proceeds with sale of the E.P. Schedule

¶17

property, E.A.No.33 of 2011 itself would become infructuous.

¶18

Accordingly, the order under revision dated 28.10.2011 in E.P.No.69 of 2010 is hereby set aside and the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to consider and decide E.A.No.33 of 2011 following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

¶19

It is represented by the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent that the 1^st respondent/decree holder has already filed his counter to E.A.No.33 of 2011 contending inter alia that the said petition is not maintainable. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Court below to hear both the parties with regard to the maintainability of E.A.No.33 of 2011 and in case, it is found to be maintainable, the said application should be heard and decided on merits.

¶20

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner would not ask for any further adjournment and would cooperate for disposal of E.A.No.33 of 2011 within the time prescribed above.

¶21

The statement of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is placed on record. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs.

¶22

______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 26.12.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days. KLP

Bharathula Sridevi v. Kommuri Purnachandra Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharathula Sridevi v. Kommuri Purnachandra Rao

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

Smt Goundala Padmamma, Vs Sri Palle Veeraiah

M/s. Kavita 70 Mm., a/c., Rep., by its Managing Partner Vs The Collector, Karimnagar.

M.Divya , Vijaya Kumari Vs M.Ravikanth Reddy

The Andhra Pradesh Mahila Abhivrudhi Society (Apmas) Vs Aware,Registered Sociewty Under the Registration of

Gundeti Vijaya Bhaskar Vs Sri S.Hari Prasad

M/s Chaitanya Restors, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh