Allowed¶36

Megacity Avopa Housing Welfare Society v. M/s. Mamatha Projects private Limited

Telangana HC10 Oct 2025CRP/1946/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Transfer of decree; Section 39 CPC; execution petition closed; maintainability of transfer application; cryptic non-speaking docket order; Article 227 revision; Telangana High Court; CRP No.1946 of 2019; remand for fresh disposal; Megacity Avopa Housing Welfare Society v. Mamatha Projects Pvt. Ltd.; Section 151 CPC reopening of execution petition; attachment of immovable property; City Civil Court Hyderabad jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed; order dated 31.10.2018 in E.A.No.10 of 2018 in E.P.No.5 of 2011 in O.S.No.163 of 2000 set aside; matter remanded to the I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar for independent decision on merits after hearing both parties; no order as to costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed. ¶36

Megacity Avopa Housing Welfare Society Vs M/s… — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the docket order dated 31.10.2018 in E.A.No.10 of 2018 (decretal-holder's Section 39 CPC transfer application) dismissing the EA as not maintainable because E.P.No.5 of 2011 stood closed is a valid order, or whether it is cryptic, non-speaking and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The impugned order of the learned I-Additional District Judge is cryptic and was passed without considering or appreciating the pleadings and contentions of both parties and without applying judicial mind; on its face it is erroneous and liable to be set aside.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

An application under Section 39 of CPC seeking transfer of a decree is to be dealt with independently, and the pendency of an execution petition is not a requirement for entertaining such an application; the transfer application had to be decided independently notwithstanding the closure of E.P.No.5 of 2011.

¶32

Key takeaways

The order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District is set aside and the matter is remanded to the concerned court to take up E.A.No.10 of 2018 in E.P.No.5 of 2011 in O.S.No.163 of 2000 independently, taking into consideration the contentions of both parties, granting opportunity to raise arguments (including the limitation issues raised by the respondent) and deciding the application on merits.ratio¶35

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against a docket order dated 31.10.2018 of the learned I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nagar, whereby the decree-holder's E.A.No.10 of 2018 in E.P.No.5 of 2011 (in O.S.No.163 of 2000) seeking transfer of the decree under Section 39 of CPC to the court having territorial jurisdiction over the scheduled property was rejected as 'not maintainable' on the sole ground that the execution petition stood closed. Held: the impugned order is cryptic, non-speaking and passed without applying judicial mind; an application under Section 39 of CPC for transfer of a decree is to be dealt with independently and the pendency of the execution petition is not a requirement for entertaining it. Order set aside and matter remanded for fresh consideration of E.A.No.10 of 2018 on merits, both parties being at liberty to raise their contentions (including limitation) before the trial court. CRP allowed with no order as to costs.

¶1

[³⁴⁴³ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

¶3

FRIDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENW FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

. THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA

¶6

CIVIL REVISION PET NO: 1946 OF 2019

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of lhe constitution of lndia aggrieved by the Order dated31l10l2018passed inEA.No.10 oI 2018 in EP.No.5 of 2010 onthefiteof the court of the I Additional District Judge, Rangareddy at L.B.Nager.

¶8

Megacity Avopa Housin g Welfare Society, Represented by authorized representative K.Murali Krishna, Joint Secretary, 3-5-855/7, First Floor, Hyderguda, Hyderabad.

¶9

Petitioner/Decree Holder

¶10

AND

¶11

M/s. Mamatha Projects private Limited, Rep. by its chairman and MD P.janaki Rama Rao, Adarshnagar, Opposite IDPL Colony, Balangar, Hyderabad.

¶12

K.Siddaiah, S/o. K. Ramaiah, Ex-president of Megacity housing welfare society, Residentof 1-10-5 11, Street No.3, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad

¶13

...RespondenUJudgment Debtor

¶14

Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. C ROHINI SUNITHA

¶15

Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P B VIJAY KUMAR

¶16

The Court made the following: OROER

¶17

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA cwtL REVISIOII PETITION No.1946 of 20L9

¶18

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in E.A.No.1O of 2018 in E.p.No.OS of 2Oll in O.S.No. 163 of 2OOO, wherein the present EA was frled by the decree holder under section 39 of CPC seeking transfer of decree.

¶19

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/pl:rintiff decree holder filed the suit against the Judgement Debtor/defendant No.l and 2 seeking recovery of sum of Rs. I9,O0,0OO /- and the same was decreed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, jointly and severally at the rate of 24o/o per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and further directed the Judgement Debtor to pay a sum of Rs.21,428/- towards the costs of suit to the petitioner/decree holder.

¶20

After the decree, the petitioners filed the present E.P.No.S of 2Oll, dated l2.O6.2OLa against the Judgement Debtors praying attachment of immovable propert5r of Judgement Debtor No.2 being 50% share in house bearing No. 1_ 10-25/1, Street no.2, Ashok Nagar, contending that, as per the

¶21

¶22

information shared by their counsel, tJle said property was situated in local limits of Hyderabad, under the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Hyderabad and it is not within the jurisdiction of the I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, as such prayed to transfer the decree to the court having territorial jurisdiction to execute the attachment and sale of property. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the counter was also filed by the Judgement Debtor, but the learned I-Additional District Judge has passed the docket order stating that EA.No.1O of 2ol} is not maintainable since the E.P.No.5 of 2O11 was closed.

¶23

¶24

¶25

The said order which is assailed before this court under the Civil Revision Petition was on tJre ground that the learned Judge did not consider the contentions raised by the petitioners and also failed to take into account the fact that the respondents had also field their counter. Further, since the execution orders could not be passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge as the property is situated within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the learned judge ought to have allowed the application. It is also further contended that, though counters were filed on 30.08 .2018 and the matter was partly heard on 18.09.2018 and objections were raised by the

¶26

r' ,

¶27

¶28

respondent with regard to the non_filing of the petition for re_ opening. A petition under provision of section r5r seeking to reopening of the Ep was also Iiled vide E.A.No.3g of 201g, dated 12.10.2018, and the respondent sought time for filing counters therein.

¶29

It is also contended that the learned l_Additional District Judge did not appreciate the fact that there was a pending application for transfer of Ep and that the Ep was closed without even considering the contentions raised by both the parties

¶30

On perusal of the order passed by the learned I_ Additional District Judge, on the face of it, the order appears very cr5ptic and without any reasons cited. It is borne out from the record that the petitioners had fi,ed a detailed affidavit citing the reasons for seeking transfer of the decree to the court which has jurisdiction where the property is situated. It is also not in dispute that the counters were filed. The learned.Judge without considering or without appreciating the entire pleadings and contentions of both the parties and without applyrng his judicial mind, passed a very cr5rptic order. Though it is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the Judgement debtor that

¶31

¶32

even on the said date a fresh application^{was filed by the} petitioner, and even the said aspects were not^{been considered.} It appears that no opportunity was^given to either^{party to place} their contentions. Prima facie, on the^face of^{it, the very order} appears to be erroneous and on the date of^frling of^the application, the execution petition was still^pending.Even otherwise an application under section 39 of^{CPC for seeking} transfer of a decree is to be dealt independently,^{and the} pendency of an execution petition is not a requirement^for entertaining such an application. As^{seen from the record, the} said EA was disposed of on 31.10.2018,^{which is subsequentto} the closure of the E.P.No.S of 2O11 and the tralsfer^{of decree} application is independent and it has to^{be dealtindependently'}

¶33

Therefore, the order passed by the learned^Judge, being on the fact of it is etroneous^{and is liable to be set aside.} The learned counsel for the respondent has^{raisedcertain} issues, even in respect of the limitation. As such,^{liberty is} granted to both parties to raise their respective^contentions before the trial Court. This Court^feels it is a^{fit case to remand} the matter back to the concerned Court, to take up^the E.A.No. 1O of 2018 in E.P.No.S of 2Ol1 in^{O.S.No.163 of 20OO} independently, taking^{into considerationthe contentionsof both}

¶34

¶35

parties and giving them an opportunit5r to raise their respective arguments and decide the application on merits. With the said observations, the order dated 31.10.2018 passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District is set aside, and the matter is remanded back to the file.

¶36