A civil revision petition filed to challenge an eviction order during the pendency of a second appeal. The court dismissed the petition as devoid of merit, noting the petitioner's failure to comply with an interim stay condition.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with no costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions shall stand closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2955 OF 2013
Dated: 18.07.2013
Between: Mohammed Ali Layeeq and another .. Petitioners And Najeemullah Khan .. Respondent
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2955 OF 2013
ORDER:
The revision petitioners are the judgment-debtors in E.P.No.22 of 2013 in O.S.No.4338 of 2006 on the file of the Court of VIII-Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The respondent herein/decree-holder filed the said E.P. for execution of the decree in O.S.No.4338 of 2006 by delivery of vacant and physical possession of the suit schedule premises through Bailiff of the Court and also by attaching the E.P. schedule movable property for recovery of the arrears of rent along with interest. By the order under Revision, the Court below allowed the E.P. as prayed for and directed to issue warrants for delivery of possession and attachment of movables.
Admittedly the decree in O.S.No.4338 of 2006 was confirmed on appeal in A.S.No.215 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the XIIIAddl. Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. However, it is stated that Second Appeal preferred against the said judgment is pending on the file of this Court.
The order under Revision is sought to be assailed before this Court only on the ground of pendency of the Second Appeal before this Court. However, it is relevant to note that this Court had initially granted interim stay of the operation of the judgment and decree against the revision petitioner subject to condition of depositing the arrears of rents and also to continue to deposit the monthly rents at the rate of Rs.2,700/-. Admittedly the revision petitioner failed to comply
with the condition so imposed and therefore the Court below having heard the execution petition allowed the same assigning reasons therefor.
After hearing the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and after perusing the material available on record, I am unable to hold that the order under Revision suffered from any patent error of fact or law warranting interference by this Court.
Even with regard to the objection raised by the revision petitioners that the respondent - decree holder cannot seek two reliefs in one execution petition, it is relevant to note that the said objection was considered and rejected by the Court below following the ratio
laid down in A.Ramesh v. Chintala Prabha @ Prabhavath i[1] .
Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.
____________
G.ROHINI, J
Date: 18.07.2013 Ivd
[1] 2001 (6) ALT 529
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision court can interfere with the eviction order on the ground of pendency of a second appeal when an interim stay condition was not complied with.
Whether the decree holder can seek both delivery of possession and attachment of movables in the same execution petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.Ramesh v. Chintala Prabha @ PrabhavathReferred¶13
A.Ramesh v. Chintala Prabha @ Prabhavath
2001 (6) ALT 529Referred¶14
Mohammed Ali Layeeq and another
Najeemullah Khan
G. Rohini
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
