Dismissed

Nachu Kondappa , Kondaiah [Died] v. Jarajala Venaktaramanamma

Telangana HC30 Oct 2012CRP/4964/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil revision petition against an order rejecting an objection to locus standi. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding the objection premature as the third party's recognition petition was still pending for examination. Petitioners were directed to contest the pending application.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners granted liberty to contest the pending third party application. No order as to costs.

Nachu Kondappa , Kondaiah [Died] Vs Jarajala… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4964 of 2012

¶6

BETWEEN

¶7

Nachu Kondappa @ Kondaiah and two others.

¶8

... PETITIONERS

¶9

AND

¶10

Jarajala Venaktaramanamma and another.

¶11

...RESPONDENTS

¶12

Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. ALLUR MANJUNATH

¶13

Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED--

¶14

The Court made the following:

¶15

ORDER:

¶16

Petitioners are decree holders in O.S.No.21 of 1985. The said decree is put to execution in E.P.No.22 of 2006. However, petitioners states that they never sought execution of the decree and on the contrary, the said EP is being prosecuted by another claimant,

¶17

who claims to be an assignee from the decree holders. The application of the third party claimant to recognize the assignment and permit him to come on record, as petitioner No.2 in EP, is said to be pending in EA.No.55 of 2007. Since the petitioner herein was ex parte in EA.No.55 of 2007, he filed application EA.No.75 of 2007 requesting the Court to set aside the ex parte

¶18

order dated 14.08.2007 and permit the petitioner to defend E.A.No.55 of 2007. By order dated 16.12.2008, the said E.A.No.75 of 2007 was allowed and thereafter, EA.No.55 of 2007 is coming up for enquiry and is at the stage of examination of P.W.1.

¶19

2. Petitioners have, thereafter, filed objections in C.F.No.1278 of 2011 by memo objecting to the locus standi of the petitioner in E.A.No.55 of 2007. The said objection petition filed by way of a memo was, however, rejected by the Court below under docket order dated 23.07.2012, inter alia, holding that EA.No.55 of 2007 itself is coming up for cross-examination and without deciding the said EA, no orders can be passed on the memo filed by the petitioner raising objections. The present revision is filed against the said order.

¶20

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶21

4. The relevant portion of the docket order of the Court below is extracted hereunder:

¶22

“As seen from the docket order in E.A.No.75 of 2007 in E.P.No.22 of 2006 in O.S.No.21 of 1985 dt.16.12.2008 which read as follows:

¶23

‘Heard the counsels. Counsel for respondent (D.Hr.3^rd party0 that no objection to allow this petition. Hence, petition is allowed.’

¶24

As seen from the E.A.no.55 of 2007 in E.P.no.22 of 2006 in O.S.No.21 of 2005 the said E.A. has been filed by J. Sudhakar claimed to the transferee of the decree with a prayer to permit him to come on record in the above E.P. as a transposed decree holder in the place of respondents 1 to 3 and transposed respondents 1 to 3, and respondents 3 and in the interest of justice. The said E.A.no.55 of 2007 was coming up for cross examination of P.W.1 by the respondents therein including the person who filed the present memo. Therefore, without disposing of the said E.A.No.55 of 2007 in E.P.No.22 of 2006 in O.S.No.21 of 1985, the relief as sought in the present memo is nothing but a premature one. Therefore, unless and until the disposal of E.A.No.55 of 2007 on merits, the present memo at this juncture is un-reasonable.

¶25

In the circumstances, accordingly this memo is closed.”

¶26

5. It is evident from above that petitioners’ E.A.No.75 of 2007 was allowed whereby they were given opportunity to defend E.A.No.55 of 2007. It is, therefore, for the petitioners to defend E.A.No.55 of 2007 by taking available legal pleas as permissible under law and the Court below was right in observing that orders as to rejection of E.A.No.55 of 2007 cannot be passed on the memo filed by the petitioners.

¶27

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the very filing of the EP as well as the alleged assignment is disputed by the petitioners.

¶28

7. Even if that be so, it is a matter for the petitioners to lead evidence and contest E.A.No.55 of 2007. I am, therefore, unable to see any infirmity in the order impugned.

¶29

The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioners having already been granted liberty to contest E.A.No.55 of 2007, they are at liberty to approach the executing Court and contest the said EA as per law. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶30

_____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J

¶31

October 30, 2012 DSK

Nachu Kondappa , Kondaiah [Died] v. Jarajala Venaktaramanamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nachu Kondappa , Kondaiah [Died] v. Jarajala Venaktaramanamma

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

Emmaneni Satish Vs M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited

Akramsetti venkateswaramma Vs Mekala Sambasiva Rao

Vadhiboyana Venkata Krishna Reddy Vs Smt. v. Supraja Chandra

Chintal Ram Reddy Vs Vadal Kistaiah

Sri P.Randheer Arya, Vs Smt. Challa Rama Devi

Chintapalli Samson Vs Karedla Siddeswara Rao