Allowed

Jasti Venkata Satyanarayana (Died per L.Rs) v. Koganti Venkata Ratnam (Died)

Telangana HC2 Nov 2023CRP/2669/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the revision petition, setting aside the trial Court's order dismissing a vakalat petition within seven days of the interlocutory order. The trial Court had restored the execution petition under inherent powers without it being permissible under Order 21 Rule 106.

What did the court decide?

The vacating order dated 05.07.2023 passed by the Trial Court was set aside; the Civil Revision Petition was allowed.

Jasti Venkata Satyanarayana (Died per L.Rs)… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Telangana HC (2023)

[³²⁰⁸ ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶5

THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P. SREE SUDHA

¶8

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2669 ot 2023

¶9

Petition nder Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, against the^{docket Order} dated 05-07-2023 in E.A.No.177 ol 2023 in E.P.No.531^{of 201} I^{on the file of the} Court of theI Learned Principal District Judge, Suryapet

¶10

¶11

Between: I

¶12

JastiiVenkata Satyanarayana^{(Died per} L.Rs)

¶13

Jasti i Rajyalaxmi, W/o Venkata Satyanarayana, Aged about^{58 years,Rl/o} D.No.20-2099, Opp. Reliance Petrol Bunk, JVS Company,^{AanjaneyaNagar,} Narasaraopet Road, Vinukonda. Guntur District, Andhra^Pradesh.

¶14

Badri Laxmi Meena, W/o Naveen, aged about 30^{years, Fi/o Flat No.303,3'd} Floof, Suguna Enclave, Sai Baba Nagar, Utkur Road, Nellore,^{Nellore District,} Andhra Pradesh.

¶15

JastilUjwala, D/o Satyanarayana, Aged about 25^years,Fi./o Flat^{No. 303,3'd} Flool, Suguna Enclave, Sai Baba Nagar, Utkur Road, Nellore, Nellore^District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶16

...Petitioners/Respondents/ Judgment Debtors/Defendants

¶17

AND

¶18

Ko ganti Venkata Ratnam (Died), Sio Veera Raghavalah,

¶19

¶20

Nimrhagadda Harshitha @ Nana Harshitha, Wo Narra Shekhar,^{Aged about} 39 years, C/o Nimmagadda Ranga Rao, Opp. Bombay Jewellery,^Vijayawada, Krishna District, Andhra Pradesh.

¶21

...Respondents/Petitioners/

¶22

Decree Holders/Plaintiff

¶23

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that in the circumstances^statedin the affidavit filed in support of the.petition, the High Cour{ may be^{pleasedto stay} all the furth'er proceedings in E.P.No.531of 2018 in O.S.No.55 of 2004 on the^file II

¶25

I I i I I

¶26

of Court o Hon'ble Principal District Judge at Suryapet pending disposal of the above Civil Revision Petition in the interest of justice Counsel fof the Petitioners: SRI SHAIK MADAR

¶27

Counsel tolr,t," R"apondent No.2: SRI G. SINDHU

¶28

rne courtliaae the following: oRDER

I It I I I

I I I

t I.

t,, I I I I

I I

I i I

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE^SUDHA CwIL REVISION PETITION No. 2669 of 2o23

¶37

ORDER:

¶38

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the docket Order dated 05.O7.2023 in E.A.No. 177 of 2023 in^{E.P.No.531 of} 2018 passed by the learned Principal District^{Judge, Suryapet} which reads as follows:

¶39

'Heard both stdes. Perused the record.^{This petitionis} fited^bg the petitioner/ decree holder U/o.21 Rule 106 r/w^Sec.151of CPC tuith a praAer to restore the^E.P.closed on^{22.02.2023and} to permtt the petitioner/ decree holder to^{proceed tuith the D.P. in} the interest of^justice. The respondent/ J.Dr. filed^counterand opposed the petition. On perusal of the reard it^{reueals that the} petitioner/ decree hoLder herein Jiled DP.N1.531/2O18 against the respondent/ J.Dr. for realization ol decretal amount of Rs.47,56,459/ - by wag of attachment and sale of^immouable propertA shou.)n tn the petition. Howeuer, on 22.2.2023^the aboue D.P. uas dismissed for default. It is not dn order^passed on merits of the case. Therefore, in the circumstances of^the mse, tt is^just and^proper to set aside^{dismissalorder,} dt:22.02.2023 othenaise, the petitioner/ decree holder^{u.tillput to} irreparable loss and Lnrdships.^Therefore, in^{orderto meet the} ends of^justice the petition is alloued and dismissal^order, dt:22.02.2023 in the aboue E.P is set aside^{on pagment of costs} of Rs.50O/ -. The E.P. is restored to its oiginol Jile'.

¶40

Petitioners/ defendants stated that one Koganti^Venkata Ratnam/ respondent No.1 herein filed O.S.No.SS of 2004^for recovery of promissory note debt against them and he^died intestate on O3.04.2OO8. The said suit was compromised^with terms and accordingly Lok Adalat Award^{was passedon}

¶41

.rM
\ ,r'f

¶42

¶43

29.O9.2006. As per the Lok Aclalat Award terms, rhe Judgment Debtors have to pay the Award amount on or befor,_- 30.06.2O07 and conditional attachment before Judgment wils a so passed in respect of the item Nos.1 to 4 properties in I.A..\o.4g4 g ot 2004 in O.S.No.SS of 2OO4, but till today they har,.e nct paid any amount, as such respondent No.2 herein fileci th,: Execution Petition in E.p.No.S3l of 2O1g to attach item Nos.l to 4 of the suit schedule property and proclamation and also for sale notice of item Nos.1 to 4 to recover the decreetal amount, but it was dismissecl on 22.o2 .2023 . Aggrieved by the szrid Order, respondent No.2 herein filed tr.A.No. lZ7 of 2023lor restoration of Execution petition u,hich was closed on 22.O2..2O2:) and they opposed the petition by fi.ling the counter. The trral Oourt after considering thc arguments of both sides allowed the Petition on costs of Rs.SOO/- by setting aside the dismissal Or<ler of the Execution petition dated 22.02.2023 and restored Lhe llxecution Petition in E.p.No.531 of 201g. Aggrieved by the sa d Order, preferred the present Civil Revision petition.

¶44

The lcarned Counsel for the petitioners/J jtdgment debtors mainly contended that the trial Court erroneorrsly held that on 22.O.).2O23, the Execution petition was dismi ;sed for default, but it was dismissed on merits, as such the rcmedy is

¶45

¶46

to hle a Civil Revision Petition before this Court for restoration of E.P.No.531 of 2018. The provisions of Order 21 rule 106 of C.P.C are not applicable for restoration of Execution Petition. Therefore, requested this Court to set aside the Order dated O5.O7.2023 passed in tr.A.No.177 of 2023 in E.P.No.531 of 2018 in O.S.No.55 of 2OO4.

¶47

The docket Order of the trial court in tr.P.No.S31 of 2018

¶48

reads as follows:

¶49

"D.Hr called absent. No representat[on. Heard and perused the counter ftled bg the other side. The oiginal/ D.Hr is no more and the petition also filed and EP is closing to be deceased daughter of oigtnal D.Hr. It is noticed that she did not rtk anA piece of paper to shoLu the deceased daughter of onginal D.Hr. This EP is filed uithout prepaing anA doatment to shou thot she is LR oJ original D.Hr. Moreouer, she is not present and no representation on her behnlf. Hence DP is dtsmissed".

¶50

The learned Counsel for the petitioners herein contended that tr.P.No.531 of 2018 was dismissed on the ground that respondent No.2 herein has not filed any document to show that she was the daughter of the original Decree holder and it was not dismissed for default. When an application was filed under Order 21 rule 106 of C.P.C to set aside the said Order dated 22.02.2023, the trial Court erroneously observed that it was dismissed for default and restored the same. In fact, it cannot be restored by the same Court and it is for the respondents

¶51

¶52

¶53

herein to file a Civil Revision Petition against the Order dateci 22.O2.2023 before this Court. Considering the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioners herein, this Court finds that it is just and reasonable to allov,r the presenL Civil Revision Petition.

¶54

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is iLllowecl by setting aside the docket Order dated 05,07.2O23 passed by the trial Court in tr.A.No.177 of 2023 in tr.P.No.531 rrf 2r)18. There shali be no Order as to costs.

¶55

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand

¶56

To,

¶57

closed. T SD/- MOHD.^ISMAIL I ASSISTANT^REGISTRAR II IITRUE COPY// '1/' l II SECTION^OFFICER I I

¶58

The Principal^{District Judge, Suryapet'} 2. One CC^{to SRISHAIK MADAR,Advocate IOPUUI} .. O"" tC^{to SRI G. SINDHU,Advocate[OPUC]} 4. Two'CD^CoPies I NS kam V l" I t t I i i ] l it

HIGH C OURT

PSS

DAT 211112023

I l 1

.l tI {tI! I ORDE R U; CRP.N .q.2669 of 2023 1", ,,t I I I I l I 1 I II 1 I i ? THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED I <sup>v.l ').> * I

¶65

:a::=:
-..nE sTA r€,
q
?
o 1 2 0EC 2023 !;t
j:.' '1
*
t\ _ l' y',.1-:1- t

Jasti Venkata Satyanarayana (Died per L.Rs) v. Koganti Venkata Ratnam (Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasti Venkata Satyanarayana (Died per L.Rs) v. Koganti Venkata Ratnam (Died)

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

Aman Oil Industries Vs Sri Jagadamba Ginning Presenting (P) Ltd.

Shakatam Srinivas Vs P.Rayamallu and Another

Cherlapally Kistaiah Vs Mohammad Khamuriddin

Anthati Vasantha Vs Ilapuram Kusuma Kumari

Gaddam Kotaiah Vs Yatham Laxmi

New India Assurance Company Ltd., and Another Vs Dabbeti Venkatamma and 2 Others