Allowed

P. Lakshmi v. Satti Bapayamma

Telangana HC24 Jan 2012CRP/2889/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision Petition filed by third party petitioners resisting execution of a decree. Court set aside order dismissing stay application due to pending appeal. Directed High Court to file disposal of appeal within two months.

What did the court decide?

I.A.No.305 of 2011 allowed; impugned order set aside; High Court directed to dispose appeal within two months; interim order dated 22.07.2011 vacated.

P. Lakshmi Vs Satti Bapayamma — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2889 of 2011

¶3

Date: 24.01.2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

P.Lakshmi and three others

¶6

..... Petitioners

¶7

And:

¶8

Satti Bapayamma and two others.

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Sriramachandra Murthy Counsel for Respondent No.1: Sri S.Nagesh Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 & 3: None appeared.

¶11

The Court made the following: ORDER:

¶12

This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order, dated 27.06.2011, in I.A.No.305 of 2011 in A.S.No.26 of 2011 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothapet, East Godavari District.

¶13

The petitioners are third parties to the suit-O.S.No.93 of 2004 filed by respondent No.1 against respondent Nos.2 and 3. The said suit was decreed ex parte. When respondent No.1 sought to execute the said suit, the petitioners who claimed to be in possession of the E.P.

¶14

schedule property have resisted the execution and filed E.A.No.221 of 2010 under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court. Questioning the said order, the petitioners filed A.S.No.26 of 2011 before the lower appellate Court. In the said appeal, the petitioners filed I.A.No.305 of 2011 seeking stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.20 of 2007 in O.S.No.93 of 2004. The said application having been rejected, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners.

¶15

I have heard Sri S.Sriramachandra Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I.Nagesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶16

It is not in dispute that the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dismissing their E.A.No.221 of 2010 is pending before the lower appellate Court.

¶17

Sri I.Nagesh, learned counsel for respondent No.1decree-holder, fairly submitted that his client could not take delivery of possession of the E.P. schedule property from the petitioners in view of the strict resistance offered by them.

¶18

Inasmuch as the petitioners are admittedly in possession of the E.P. schedule property and the appeal filed by them is pending, the elements of balance of convenience and irreparable injury lie in their favour. Therefore, for protecting their possession till the disposal of

¶19

the appeal, the order under revision is set aside. I.A.No.305 of 2011 is allowed. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothapet, East Godavari District, is directed to dispose of A.S.No.26 of 2011 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. If the petitioners do not co-operate in disposal of the appeal, the lower appellate Court shall proceed with and decide the same on merits.

¶20

Subject to the above directions, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed.

¶21

As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, interim order dated 22.07.2011, is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.4139 of 2011 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.

¶22

__________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 24^th January 2012 DR

P. Lakshmi v. Satti Bapayamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Lakshmi v. Satti Bapayamma

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

Vijaya Bank,Malakpet Branch, Vs Shaik mohinuddin

M/S Srinivasa Deluxe Theaatre Ongole Vs Dy.Comm. (C.T.) (Fac) Guntur E.Tax.Apple

Veeramani and Another Vs Mumtaz Ali , Mumtaz Ahmed and 2 Others

Seelam Narsimha Rao Vs Smt.Paruchuri Padmaja

Sri Sai Agencies Vs Hugulothu Sridevi

Nagalla Narasimha Rao Vs Penubally Rami Setty