VATTIPROLU RATTAIAH v. KRAPA SUJATHA

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 pleased to stay all further proceedings in EP No. 3/2021 in U.S No. 63/2019 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, Guntur District including Sale etc., during the pendency of CRP before this Hon'ble Court and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA Counsel for the Respondent:

The Court made the following order: Heard Sri Venkata Durga Rao Anantha, learned counsel for the revision petitioner.

Despite the service of notice, none appeared for the respondents.

The judgment debtor filed the above revision against the order dated

29.12.2022 in E.P.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.63 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnuru.

The respondent, being the plaintiff, filed O.S.No.63 of 2019 against the revision petitioner. The suit was decreed on 04.07.2019. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.3 of 2021 under Order XXI Rule 64 and 66 C.P.C. to issue a sale notice to the judgment debtor, and, after considering objections, the sale of the E.P. schedule property by public auction for realization of the decretal amount.

The judgment debtor filed a counter. It was contended that an application was filed to set aside the ex parte decree, along with a petition to condone the delay, a written statement, and the same is pending for consideration. The judgment debtor has no absolute right over the EP schedule property, as it was a joint family property.

The Executing Court, after considering all the aspects, passed an order dated 29.12.2022, holding that there are no tenable grounds to drop the execution proceedings against the judgment debtor and as such, the decree holder has every right to proceed with the sale of E.P. schedule property.

Learned counsel for the revision petitioner would submit that the judgment debtor is an eighty-year-old person and that the attached property is a joint family property. He would further submit that an application is filed to set aside the ex parte decree, along with a petition to condone the delay, is pending before the trial Court.

6. The point for consideration is: Whether the order dated 29.12.2022 in E.P.No.3 of 2021 in O.S.No.63 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ponnur, suffers from any illegality?

7. There is no dispute that a suit filed by the respondent against the revision petitioner was decreed on 04.07.2019. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.3 of 2021 under Order XXI Rule 64 and 66 C.P.C. The E.P. schedule property was attached in I.A.No.116 of 2019 in O.S.No.63 of 2019 on 25.02.2019, and the said attachment was made absolute.

The revision petitioner/judgment debtor/defendant the affidavit pleaded that the schedule property is a joint family property, and no documentary evidence was produced in support of the said contention. The Executing Court considered all these aspects and passed the order dated

29.12.2022.

This Court does not find any illegality or material irregularity in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.