Criminal Revision Petition wherein court suspended execution proceedings for one month to allow pending third party appeal by legal heirs, clarifying that dismissal of earlier appeal does not prejudice rights to maintain third party appeal in execution matter.
Execution proceedings of E.P. No.101 of 2009 suspended for one month.
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.
HON’BLE Dr. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.2301 of 2017
ORDER :
Heard both sides at length.
2
Dr.SSRB, J C.R.P.No.2301 of 2017
2010 (Civil). Having regard to the above, the claim of the revision petitioner who went unsuccessful in maintaining E.A.No.14 of 2010 before the Junior Civil Judge, Anaparthi of East Godavari District, is that the decree-holder/plaintiff in O.S.No.389 of 2009 by name Dharma Raju (junior) cannot maintain suit and obtain decree against P.Srinivasareddy-the defendant as legal heir of late Dharma Raju (senior), but for the petitioner-Nagi Reddy and the E.P.No.101 of 2009 filed by Dharma Raju (junior) against P.Srinivasareddy is unexecutable, but for to execute by him and to pass an order to that effect by declaring him as class-II legal heir of late Dharma Raju (senior). That E.A.No.14 of 2010 while pending Nagi Reddy died and his son Venkata Reddy came on record as 2nd petitioner. In fact, as referred supra, there is no inherent lack of jurisdiction to the Court, the said Nagi Reddy much less his son Venkata Reddy were not even parties to the decree. If at all, the said Nagi Reddy or his son Venkata Reddy to claim as legal heirs of late Dharma Raju (senior) for the suit claim is the available efficacious remedy of filing a third party appeal showing as parties-respondents the plaintiff/decree-holder and defendant/judgment-debtor of E.P.No.101 of 2009 in execution of the decree in O.S.No.389 of 2009 and not to maintain a claim petition covered by E.A.No.14 of 2011.
3
Dr.SSRB, J C.R.P.No.2301 of 2017
to consider, the revision can be disposed of for nothing to interfere with the order of the lower Court, but for clarifying none of the observations of the lower Court in dismissing E.A.No.14 of 2010 shall prejudice the rights of the petitioners to maintain a third party appeal by seeking leave before appropriate Court of law.
of.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
____________________________ Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J
15th November 2017.
Note: Issue C.C. by 17.11.2017.
3 issues framed by the court
Whether execution proceedings should be suspended to allow pending third party appeal by legal heirs.
Whether lower court's dismissal of earlier appeal prejudices rights to file third party appeal.
Whether executory court can declare class legal heir in execution proceedings.
Venkata Reddy
P. Srinivasareddy
B. SIVA SANKARA RAO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
