Allowed

Sunkaraneni Chandrashekar v. Jadala Khushal Das (Died)

Telangana HC7 Nov 2025CRP/2749/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judgment-debtor challenged a docket order dismissing his application to lead evidence in an execution proceeding for delivery of possession. The High Court held the order was passed without considering his pending appeal and defences, set it aside and remanded for fresh disposal.

What did the court decide?

Impugned docket order dated 04.08.2025 in E.A.No.75 of 2025 in E.P.No.98 of 2024 set aside; matter remanded to trial court for fresh disposal.

Sunkaraneni Chandrashekar Vs Jadala Khushal Das… — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁸ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA

¶3

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶6

REVI

¶7

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to allow the C.R.P., by setting aside the Docket order passed in E.A.No.7S of 2025 in E.P.No. 98 of 2024 dt., 04/0812025 on the file of the Court of the ll Addl., District Judge at Warangal and pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

¶8

Between:

¶9

1 sunkaraneni chandrashekar, , s/o. Late Mohan Rao, Aged about 4g years, Occ. Police constable, R/o. H.No.16-3-829/4, Ekashiranagar, Fort itoad, Warangal.

¶10

...PETtTtONER(S)

¶11

AND

¶12

1 . Jadala Khushal Das (DIED), (Since Died as Per his LR's R- 2 to z herein

¶13

Jadala Rameshwar, S/o. Late Jadala Kushal Das, Aged about 70 years, Occ. Household, R/o. H. No./Flat No. 502, H. No. 1 -4-z 47, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶14

Guda [adha, wo G Rqlan Babu, D/o Late Jadala Kushal, Aged about 70 feqrs,^{Occ. Household,R/o.H.No.3-14-601A1303,Flat No.303, Block No.A,} Gulmor Garden, Madhapur, Hyderabad.

¶15

Jadala Sandhay Rani, , D/o, L?!e Jadala Kushal Das, Aged about 68 years, Occ . Housewife, R/o./Flat No. 504, H. No. 1 -4-7 41, Musheerabad, Hyd6rabad.

¶16

Jadala Uma Rani, wo Late Jadala Ravi Kumar, Aged about 56 years, occ. Household, R/o. Flat No.504, H. No. 1 -7 -7 47, Jadala Towers, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶17

Jadala Shiva Kumar, S/o Late Jadala Ravi Kumar ,^Aged about 40 years, 0cc. Govt. Employee, R/o.Flat No.504, H. No.1-7-747, Jadala Towers, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶18

7 Jadala Mukesh Kumar, s/o Late Jadala Ravi Kumar, Aged about 30 years, occ. student, R/o.Flat No.504, H.No.1-z-141, Jadala T6wers, Musheerabad, Hyderabad.

¶19

...RESPONDENTS

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the p"iition, in" nign court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.p.No. ga of 2024 in [rrruance to the Judgment and Decree passeo in b.s.no. 61 of 2016, dt , oeioqtzo24 pending disposal of the CRp in the interest of justice.

¶22

counsel for the Petitioner(s):sRr. SHASHANK GARTGE

¶23

counsel for the Respondent No.4 : sRl. sAl cHAlrANyA PRASAD

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

HON'BLE SRI^{JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN} RE TITIO F

¶26

ORDER:

¶27

.^{Heard Sri Rajeshwara Rao Garige, learned counsel representing} Sri Shashank Garige,^{learned counselfor the petitionerand Sri SP Sai} Chaitanya Prasad, learned^{counseltbr the 4th respondent- Despite} service of notice, there^{is no representationon behalf of respondent} Nos.2, 3,5 to 7.

¶28

The present civil^{Revision Petition is filed by the} petitioner/J.Dr./defendant^{assailingthe docket order dated 04.08.2025} passed in E.A.No.75 of 2025 in^{E.P.No.98of 2024 by the II} Additional District Judge^{at Warangal.}

¶29

I't respondent had^{filed a suit vide O.S.No.61of 2016 against} the petitioner herein/defendant^{for recovery'of suit schedule property} i.e. H.No .16-3-829/4,^{ground + First floor admeasuring249 sq.yards} situated at Ekashilanagar, Fort^{Road, WarangalDistrict(hereinafter} referred to as 'subject house').^{The said suit was decreedon} 08.04.2024. On the death of the sole^{plaintifl his legal heirs,} respondent Nos.2 to 7 herein,^were brought^{on record. The D.Hrs,} filed an execution^{petition vide E.P.No.98of 2024.}

¶30

¶31

¶32

During pendency of the said Execution Petition, the

¶33

petitioner herein/J.Dr. has filed an application vide E.,A..No.75 of 2025 under Section 151 of CPC to set aside the order dated 20.06.2025by permitting him to lead evidence in the said EP contending that on 20.06.2025, the trial Court issued warrant of delivery of possession in respect of the subject house. As the D.FIrs., without leading evidence, obtained the said warrant. As such subsequent to the disposal of the suit and after filing of the above E.P., he has preferre-d appeal before this Couft along with interim applications and the same are pending. Thus, he wants to lead evidence in the above E.P. to falsify the case of the D.Hrs. and to substantiate his case. Therefore, h.e sought to set aside the order dated 26.06.2025 passed in E.P.No.9S of 2024 and permit him to lead evidence in the said EP.

¶34

The said application was opposed by respondents/D.Hrs. by filing counter contending that the warrant of deliverl' of possession was passed after considering the entire docket proceedings in the above E.P. The petitioner/J.Dr. is trying to stall the execution of the decree by filing one or the other petition from the inception of EP. The petitioner/J.Dr. earlier filed a petition to stay the execution of decree in the present EP and the same was dismissed on merits. The tenants

)

.,,

of the J.Dr. have filed claim petitions and the same were dismissed. The petitioner/J.Dr. brought alleged second wife of the deceased/l't plaintiff and the said petition was also dismissed on merits. The petitioner/J.Dr. filed a petition in appeal seeking interim stay of proceedings in EP but no stay was granted in the said appeal by this Court. Though there is no stay, the J.Dr. without vacating the premises, enjoying the same, without paying anything and came up with this petition to recall the warrant of delivery of possession. At the instance of the J.Dr., the bailiff returned the warrant. The trial Court granted police aid, broke open the lock and issued warrant. The Petitioner/J.Dr. got it returned from the Nazarath on the ground of insufficient time. The J.Dr. being a police constable and worked as Court Constable, managed the Nazarath Section and got the said warrant of delivery of possession returned, enabling the J.Dr, to file the present petition. The J.Dr. is intentionally dragging the matter, enjoying the property, without paying rents to D.Hrs. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the petition.

¶39

Vide impugned order dated 04.08.2025, learned Executing Court dismissed E.A.No.75 of 2025 holding that the Executing Court cannot go beyond the judgment and decree, no reasons have been

¶40

¶41

brought on record by the learned counsel for the J.Dr. as to what purpose of the J.Dr. wants to lead evidence in the EP. In Execution Proceedings enquiry is not required for delivery of possession. Though the trial Court, vide judgment and decree dared 08.04.2024, granted eviction of J.Dr. and payment of damages in favour of the D.Hr., J.Dr. filed the present petition only for eviction and not for damages. Therefore, there is no need for the J.Dr. to lead evidence by the parties.

¶42

challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision contending that vide order dated 20.06.2025 in E.p.No.9g of 2024, learned Executing court issued fresh warrant of delivery of possession. Assailing the judgment and decree dated 0g.04.2025 in o.S.No.6l of 2016 passed by II Additional Districr Judge at warangal, the J.Dr., had already preferred. an appeal vide A.S.No.23 of 2025. He has also filed stay petition which is perrding and it is posted to 06. I | .2025.

¶43

The petitioner filed written statement in the said suit contending that he had already paid the entire arn,f,unt. Without considering the same, learned trial Court decreed the said suit. Therefore, to prove the same, he wants to lead evidr:nce. without

./⁾

7 --/ .v

considering the^{said aspects,vide impugned order dated 04'08'2025,} leamed executing^{Coundismissed the said apptication filed by the} petitioner.

¶49

Whereas,^{learned counsel appearingfor 4th respondent would} contend that^{the petitioner cannotgo back to the pleadings in the suit} in E.P. to^{lead evidence.}

¶50

As rightly^{held by learnedExecutingCourt that the suit is} for recovery of^{possessionand damages,the same was decreed by the} trial Court and^{respondents/D.Hrs.filed the aforesaidpetition only for} eviction, but^{not claiming damages.Therefore,there is no need of} leading any evidence.

¶51

1 l. ln support^{of his case, learned counselfor 4th respondent} placed reliance^{on the principlelaid down by the Apex Courtin Rahul} S.Shah vs. Jinendra^{Kumar Gandhil and Pradeep Mehra vs' Harijivan}

¶52

J.Jethwa^{(since ieceasedthroughL'Rs')2}

¶53

[nthe light^{of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is relevant}

¶54

to note that^{in Pradeep Mehra (supra),the Apex court categorically} held that all^{the questions betweenthe parties can be decided by the} ExecutingCourt.Buttheimportantaspecttorememberisthatthese

¶55

' 1zozt16^{scc 418}

¶56

2 zoz3 sCC onLine SC 1395

¶57

.r ,:k st:.

¶58

¶59

questions are limited to the 'execution of the decree.' The Executing Court can never go beyond the decree. Under Section^{47 of CPC, the} Executing Court cannot examine the validity of the order of the Court which had allowed the execution of decree

¶60

In Rahul S.Shah (supra), the Apex Court reiterated the said principle

¶61

T'here is no quarrel with regard to the said Legal proposition. The facts in the present case are slightllz different. The petitioner/J.[)r. wants to lead evidence contending that the respondents/D.Hrs. without leading evidence, obtained warrant of delivery of possession of the subject house. As such subsequent to disposal of the suit and after filing of the E.P. the petitioner/J.dr., preferred appeal along with interlocutory applications. The same are pending. Apart from the same, he wants to lead eviden,;e to falsif,, the manner in which the D.Hrs. are prosecuting the litigation.

¶62

To substantiate his contention, the J.Dr. wa.nts to lead the evidence. There is no dispute that the petitioner herein has already preferred an appeal in A.S.No.23 of 2025 challenging,^judgment and decree dated 08.04.2025 in O.S.No.6l of 2016 passed by II Additional District Judge at Warangal. The J.Dr. has also filed an application for

t t

( I

stay in the said^{appeat. The same are pending.During the courseof} hearing of the^{said appeal,D.FIrs. gave an undertakingto this court} rhat they will^{not press for the subject E.P. till 03'04'2025'The said} undertaking^{has not been continued'}

¶68

[t is not^{in disputethat learned counselfor the J'Dr' was} absent on^{20.06.2025.However, his Junior was present and sought} time. without^{consideringthe said request made by the Junior} counsel of^{petitioner/J.Dr.,vide order dated 20.06-2025,learned} Executing Court^{issuedwarrantof deliveryof possession'}

¶69

17 . [t is also^{settled position of law that J.Dr. can resist the} execution^{proceectingsby taking alt the defences available to hirn'} Therefore,^{he wants to lead evidencein the said execution petition'He} has specifically^{mentioned the reasons in paragraph Nos.5and 6 of the} affidavit filed^{in E.A.No.75of 2025. Withoutconsideringthe said} aspects.,^{pendency of the proceedingsin the aforesaid appealvide} A.S.No.2 3 of^{2025, learned Executing court, vide impugneddocket} order, dated^{04.08.2025 dismissed E.A.No.75 0f 2025. Thus,the} impugned order^{is not on consideration of the said aspects'Therefore'} the same is^{liable to be set aside and is accordinglyset aside'}

¶70

\ I

¶71

¶72

In the light of the said discussion, this revision is allowed.

¶73

The impugned docket order dated 04.08.2025 passed in E.A.No.75 of 2025 in E.P.No.98 of 2024 in 0.5.6t of 2016 by leamed II Additional

¶74

District Judge at Warangal, is set aside and the matler is remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to dispose of E.A.No.75 of 2025 in E.P.No.98 of 2024 in O.S.No.6l of 2016 afresh, strictly in

¶75

accordance with law.

¶76

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall

¶77

stand closed

¶78

SD/.S.MALLIKARJUNA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

¶79

//TRUE COPY//

¶80

¶81