Allowed

Abdulla Bin Abdul Raheem, v. Sayeed Bin Abdur Raheem

Telangana HC21 Jun 2013CRP/6200/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision, the High Court set aside an order by the Civil Court which cryptically closed an application under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C without reasoning, directing the lower court to decide the claim on attachment in a reasoned order within one month.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remanded to execututng court to dispose of application by passing a reasoned order within one month.

Abdulla Bin Abdul Raheem, Vs Sayeed Bin Abdur… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2013)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.6200 OF 2017

¶2

ORDER :

¶3

This civil revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C questioning the order in E.A.No.5 of 2016 in E.P.No.2 of 2015 in O.S.No.10 of 2014 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, closing the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C.

¶4

The petitioner filed E.A.No.5 of 2015 under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C to raise the attachment over the suit schedule property by adjudicating the claim on the basis of unregistered agreement of sale in respect of the property under agreement of sale, which is the subject matter of the attachment in E.P.No.2 of 2015. But the Court below passed the cryptic order which is as follows:

¶5

“Since E.A.No.6 of 2016 is rejected, this petition is not maintainable. Hence the petition is closed.”

¶6

Aggrieved by the said order the present civil revision petition is

¶7

filed, on the ground that the order under challenge is unsustainable and unreasoned and further, the reason assigned by the Court below is not in accordance with law and prayed to set aside the order.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the contentions raised in the affidavit, whereas, learned Senior Counsel Sri Vedula Srinivas supported the order of the Court below in all respects, contending that the order is consequential to the order passed in E.A.No.6 of of 2016 and therefore, the Court below rightly closed E.A.No.5 of 2016.

¶9

MSM,J CRP_6200_2017

¶10

¶11

Admittedly, the order in E.A.No.5 of 2016 dated 25.06.2017 passed by the XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, is in one single sentence which did not disclose any reason for closure of the petition. At best, the Court below can reject the application under Order XXI Rule 58(4) C.P.C, if it appears that the application is designedly filed to protract the proceedings or delay the proceedings. But the parameters for deciding the application under Order XXI Rule 97 and Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C are totally different. In the other order in E.A.No. 6 of 2006, the Court below incidentally adverted to the law laid down by the Court and recorded finding that, in a petition under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C, if the Court finds the application is filed designedly to protract the proceedings, the Court can reject the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C.

¶12

In the present case, the Court below did not reject the petition but closed the petition. According to Clause (b) of proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 58 of Order XXI C.P.C, where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions, provided that no such claim or objection shall be entertained, where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed.

¶13

Instead of passing appropriate order in accordance with law, the Court below passed a cryptic and unreasoned order, which is under challenge in the petition, as such, this order is not sustainable as it is bereft of any reasoning. Hence, the order passed by the Court below is set-aside while directing the Court below to consider the application by passing reasoned order in accordance with law.

¶14

MSM,J CRP_6200_2017

¶15

¶16

In the result, civil revision petition is allowed, while remanding the matter to the Executing Court to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, in any event, within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶17

Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any shall stand closed no costs.

¶18

_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶19

Date:20.02.2018

¶20

Abdulla Bin Abdul Raheem, v. Sayeed Bin Abdur Raheem

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdulla Bin Abdul Raheem, v. Sayeed Bin Abdur Raheem

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

Shaik Mohammad Sab Vs Bysani Subrahmanhyam

Smt. v.Prameela Rani, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s Max Pharma Pvt.Ltd., Vs The Government of Andhra Prdesh

P Saroja Devi Vs Acharya N.G. Rangacharya Agriculture University

Mohd. Jahangeer Vs Mohd. Sajid Hussain

Syed Haneef Pasha Vs Smt.Habeeb Bee