Dismissed

Panchagiri Bikshapathi, v. Sri Jillella Devender

Telangana HC17 Oct 2025CRP/3747/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Judgment debtor filed a civil revision petition under Article 227 to set aside execution proceedings in E.P.No.170 of 2019 arising from a specific-performance decree in O.S.No.65 of 2016. The High Court found he was actually aggrieved by the decree and should challenge that instead; no case was made to set aside the execution proceedings, so the CRP was dismissed.

What the court decided

AI extract

Panchagiri Bikshapathi, Vs Sri Jillella Devender — Specific Performance | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY THE SEVENTEENTH DAYOF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry FIVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

¶5

CIV L REVISION PETITION NO.3747 OF 2025

¶6

Petition under Artble 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 above Civil Revision Petition and set aside the proceedings in E.P.No.170 of 2019 in OS.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

¶7

Between

¶8

Panchagiri Bikshapathi,, S/o-Durgaiah, Aged about 5', years, Occ. Business, Rl/o. Near Chaitanya Old Mod€l School, Parkal village and Mandal, Warangal Rural District

¶9

Petitioner/Judgment Debtor

¶10

AND

¶11

Sri Jillella Devender, S/o-Sammaiah, Aged about 53 years, Occ. Govt. Teacher, R/o.H.No.5-255/1, Mallareddypalli Street, Parkal village and Mandal, Warangal Rural District.

¶12

. . . RespondenVDecree Holder

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2025

¶14

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pteased to stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.170 of 2019 in OS.No.65 ot 20'16 onlhefile of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Parkal, pending disposal of the above CRP and to pass

¶15

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. Rapolu thaskar

¶16

Counsel for lhe Respondents:

¶17

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶18

THE TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE IC LAK$^IMAN CML REVISION PETITION^No.3747t :F²⁰²⁵

¶19

ORAL ORDER:

¶20

None appears for the petitioner.

¶21

This Civil Revision Petition is frled undel Article^{227 of} Constitution of tndia to set aside the^proceedings r^{E.P.No.170 of} 2019 in O.S.No.65 of 2016 on the file of^{the le ,rmed Principal} Junior Civil Judge, Parkal.

¶22

l. Respondent is a Decree Holder. He has lled a suitⁱⁿ O.S.No.65 of 2016 against the^{petitioner her:} n^{for specihc} performance of agreement of sale dated 10.05.201( n respect of the suit schedule property. The same was decreed tn 09.05.2019. Respondent No.5 has filed an Execution Petition vir^{r E.P.No.170} of 2019 to execute the Decree and Judgment datec 09.05.2019ⁱⁿ O.S.No.65 of 2016. Petitioner filed the^{present rev sion seeking to} set aside the proceedings in the said execution^{pet iion} contending

as follows

(

a) That E.P.No.l70 of 2019 filed by the respondent/decree

¶27

holder is contrary to law, facts, and probabilities of the case. The leamed Executing Court failed to appreciate the material aspects of the mafter, resulting in grave miscarriage ofjustice;

¶28

b) That the leamed trial Court has grossly erred in decreeing the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2016 by order dated 09.05.2019 without any cogent or reliable evidence to prove the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 10.05.2016 purportedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. In the absence of such material proof, the decree is legally t'^{n sustainable;}

¶29

c) That the leamed trial Court further erred in granting a decree directing execution of a sale deed within 45 days in favour of the respondent eveir though such relief could only be sought through a properly instituted suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale. The trial court, by allowing a relief outside the scope of the suit, committed a serious error of [aw;

¶30

¶31

I I

¶32

d) That^{the learnedtrial Court failed to pror ide sufEcient} opportunity^{to the petitioner/defendantto frle a wri [en statement} and contest^{the matter. The decree and judgmentpr ssed ex-parte} without giving^{the petitioner an opportunity oflearingis in} viotation of^{the principles of naturaljusticeand Lre' therefore'} vitiated;

¶33

e) That the^{leamed trial Court ened in pass r [l an ex parte} decree^{without the production and proof of the alle6 ed Agreement} of Sale dafed^{10.05.2016,which fomrs the very basri ; of the claim'} In the absence^{of the said document,the decreesuff:s from serious} legal infirmiry^{and is liable to be set aside; and}

¶34

0^{That the learned trial Court firthererred in ' ntertainingthe} suit filed in^{the year 2016 and decreeingthe saidri rit' which does} not fall^{within the jurisdiction of the said court' Ttu decree passed} without proper^{jurisdictionis null and void ab-initittrnd liable to be} dismissed on^{this ground alone.}

I I

--A*;**="=

I I I li I I'

Perusal of the said'grounds of challenge makes it olear that petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.s.No.65 of 2016, dated Og.O5.2llg.Therefore, he has to take steps to challenge the same. lnstead, he has filed the present CRp to set aside the proceedings in the present E.p., on the aforesaid grounds.

¶40

On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner can,t seek to set aside the proceedings in E.P. petitioner failed to make our any case to set aside the proceedings in the said E.p. Thus, this revision petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed.

¶42

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending

¶43

in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

¶44

IITRUECOPYII

¶45

SD/. C, DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 SECTION OFFICER

¶46

¶47

2 The Principat Junior Civil JWg.,. parkal. (with records if any) 3 ?;:33 looffi' Raootu e+rasta"r, eavocaie r6'dilii""'

i I I I 1 I I l

HIGH COURT

DATED:17t10/2025

ORAL ORDER

CRP.No.3747 of 2025

1 HI: i4+o;-
(
7(
(-)? 1 7 ii I lli?"j 76)z Ii
I
* *
c
ir1,J

¶55

CIVIL REVISION PLTI fIoN IS DISMISSEI)

¶56

lab
6
Ia

Panchagiri Bikshapathi, v. Sri Jillella Devender

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Panchagiri Bikshapathi, v. Sri Jillella Devender

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kandadi Venkat Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. Puppala alias Narsetti Chandralekha Vs Puppala Ravi Kiran

Gajjala Naveen Reddy Vs Smt.Gajjala Sneha Reddy

Jettaboina Kumaraswamy Vs Smt.Sneha Shabarish, IAS

Burra Jagadeeshwar Vs Burra Gopala Krishna

Birla Mallesh Vs The State of Telangana