The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circrumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant the STAY on all further proceedings in compliance to the orders passed in E.P.No.808 of 2022 dt.31-07-2024 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally district, at Bhupalapally pending disposal of the O.R.P. Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl KATRAPATI SATYANARAYANA Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI G RAMACHANDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3,5,6,7,8 : SRI R GOPI MOHAN The Court made the following: ORDER 7 CRP No.477 2025 THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.477 OF 2025 ORDER: This Civil Revision Pctition is hled under Article 227 of tlre Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dated 3L.O7.2024 rn tr.P.No.808 of 2022 by the Senior Civil Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally District (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court")

2. The revision petitioner herein is the .J.Dr belore the triai Court. For convenience and clarity, the parLies herein are referred to as they were arrayed bclore the trial Court.

3. The case of the J.Drs before Lhe trial Cour[ is that the Decree Holder (D.Hr) in O.S.No.809 of 20 iO was successful in obtaining a decree for dcclaration of tille and permanent injunction over the suil schedule properLy against the revision petitioners herein. The J.DRs have not preferred any appeal against the judgment and decrce but still they have been interfering with the possession o[ the D.Hr and thus, the D.Hr has filed E.P.No.8O8 of 2022 for execution of decree and thus, vide orders dated 31.07.2024 the trial Court has allowed the E.P. hled under Order 21 Rule 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), directing the J.Drs to give an undertaking to honour the decree in O.S.No.8O9 of 2010 within a period of two weeks from the date of a-/ | I I l 2 CRP No.4 77 202 . f: ::, order, failing rvhich the warrant would be issuccl for their civil 1 imprisonment. Thus, aggrieved by the said ordcrs, thc present revisior-r is filed by the J.DRs.

4. The cont.ention of the J.DRs is that they lrre rhe rightful owners of thc suit schedule property and that tl-rcir ferther Bandi Mallaiah was the 3'd defendant in suit O.S.No.809 of 2010 but no summons q,erc served on him and thus, he u,as s()t ex-partc and that the plaintiff has obtained judgment against th:m and further has filed E.P.No.808 of 2022 and has been haras:;ing them u,ith his highhandcdncss and that he has also obtarned policc aid orders for implementation of decree and hnally, hc u,as successful in obtaining the impugned orders sceking their arrest, thus, it is their contention that they have no knou lcrll3e about thc proceedings in the suit and that they could not c,lntest the suit and that the plaintiff on the strength of the e-x 7 rar1e judgment passed against them, is using his highhandedness and harassing them, therefore, they prayed to set aside the impugned ordcrs, dated 31 .O7.20'24.

5. The respondent/D.Hr had filed counter contcndir-rg that the J.Drs are very well aware about the proceedings anrl that they are not obliging thr: decree passed by the trial Court. thus, he was constrained to file thc police aid petition which u,a s allowed and "/ !.a. 3 CRP No.477 2025 lhat, in spite of the said orders the J.Drs have not been obliging the Court orders and have been inLerfering with his possession and thereby, he was constrained to file E.p.No.8O8 of 2022 by rvl-rich the impugned order was passed and the contention of the J.Drs that they were not served with notices is false and that Bandi Mallaiah, who was the 3.d defendant in the suit was served with summons but still he did not chose to contest the matter and thereafter, after obtaining the decree and after hling the E.P. also, noLices were served on the J.Drs who are the revision petitioners herein, inspite of service of notice they failed to contest the same and thus, the said orders were passed on 31.07.2024. It is furlher submitted by the D.Hr that prior to the impugned orders, the petitioners have filed E.A.No. 15 of 2024 to set aside the order daLed 23.02.2O21 rn E.P.No.808 of 2022 by which they were set ex parte and thus, they are allowed to contest the E.P.No.808 of 2022 and as such, the conseque ntial order passed in E.P.No.SO8 of 2022 on 31.07 .2024 has no existence and therefore, he submitted that CRP itself is infructuous and hence, therefore, prayed to dismiss the same.

6. Heard the submissions of Sri Kaatrapati Saryanarayana, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri G.Rama Chaldra Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 7 4 CRP N 0.477 20

7. The learned petitioners counsel has s;ubrnitted that J'Dr'No.3 in the impugncd Dp by name Bandi Mallaiah is the husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner Nos.2 and 3 herein and they arc the legar heirs of J.DRs.No.3 who died on 06.06.2020 and that they arc simply arrayed ai pa-tics in the tr.p. as J.Drs 8 Lo 10 but no notices were served on them. It is their conterltion that thcir father who is the defer.dan t No.3 in O.S.No.8O9 of 2010 has purchased the suit sch:dule propertl, from its prcvious owner Mohd.Anwar and that thr:y are thc original owncrs of the suit schedule property and that they are also not denying rhe sale deed executed by the origi,al randlord in favour of respondent No.1 vide document No.256 oL. 1994 which is adjacent to the lancj of the revision petitione rs but their contention is thal thc said land of the plaintiff has alrcady lallen in land acquisition proceedings and that he has no Irnd at all and that he is claiming their land. It is their contention that they were not allowed to parl-icipate in thc suit before the trjal Court and after the decrce passed, they have not bee'r givcn anv opportunity to contest thc tr.p. and that the decree holder with all his highhandedness has obtained the police aid orcers and also sought for the arrest of the J.Dr, which is not proper. He furthcr argued fhat unless thc orders passed on 31.O2.2024 are set asidc, 4 5 CRP No.477 2025 they cannot contest the D.P. and putforth their case. He therefore, prayed to allow the CRP

8. The learned respondent counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the summons were very much served on defendant No.3/Bandi Maliaiah in the suit but that he has not chosen to contest the proceedings, even after obtaining the decree in O.S.No.809 of 2010, the decree holder is being disturbed by the revision petitioners herein who interfered with his possession and for execution of the decree he has filed E.P.No.8O8 of 2022 and also a police aid petition, which was allowed, inspite of which the J. Drs continued to interfere with his possession and thcreafter, he filed E.P.No.8O8 ol 2022 for arrest of J.Dr which was allowed on

31.07 .2024 seeking the J.Drs to give an undertaking within a period of two weeks for implementation of the decree, failing which they would be arrested. He further argued that the petitioners have sought for setting aside the ex parte orders vide E.A.No.15 of 2024 which was allowed by the trial Court and that now the J.Drs can contest the E.P. to end it in a logical conclusion. Once the ex parte orders are set aside the orders passed in E.P.No.808 of 2022 on 31.O7.2024 also do not exist and thereby, the CRP itself becomes infructuous and thus, has prayed to dismiss the CRP d 6 CRP No.477 20

9. Based on the above contentions, this Corrrt frames the foliowing points for consideration: 1) Whether Lhe order of the trial Cc,urL dated :r1.O7.2024 passed in E.P.No.BOB <tf 2022 is sustarnaltle in law and under thq fac ,s? 2\ To what relieL2 10, POINT NO.1: a) A perusal of the record reveals that in O.S.l.lo.gO9 of 20 10 one Bandi Mallaiah is the defendant No.3. H(r was initiallv arrayed as J.l)r in DP No.808 ol 2022 and that on his death, the revision petitiol-rcrs herein were brought on record as the LRs of Bandi Mallaiah vide E.A.No.7l7 of 2020 which uas allowed on

06.01.2021 and as a result of which, the revislon petitioncrs herein rvere brought on record as J.Drs.No.8 to I0. b) A perusal ol the impugned order shovrs that notices wcre served on the J.Dr Nos.S to 10 who are the revis on petitioners herein but thet did not chose to contest the E.p. It is further borne out by record rhat the E.A.No. 15 of 2022. filed by thc revision petitioners hercin before the trial Court to set aside thc ex parte orders was allorved by the trial Court. Thus, ttre revision petitioners can contest the E.p, as a result of thr: said orders. 7 CRP N0.477 2025 However, they did not chose to proceed with the E.p but are pressing this CRP to set aside the orders dated, 31.OT.2024. c) It has been a long drawn battle since 2OlO and they reside in the same village and still they represent that-they are not aware ol the proceedings. It is not out of place to mention that the D.Hr is not able to enjoy the fruits of the decree dated 21.06.20 lg. d) To put an end to the litigation, the J.Drs can conte st the D.P. and putforth their evidcnce so as to enable the trial court for adjudication of the matter at the earliest. e) The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders granting police aid in favour of the D.Hr and also orders dated 13.07.2024. f) The powers o[ this Court under Section l lS of the CpC are Iimited to the extenL of looking into the existence of tegal infirmity, if any, in the impugned orders. g) Section 115 of the CpC is extracted hereunder lor the sake of refcrence ) I 15. Revision.-(.1) The High Court may calt for the record of any case which has been decided by any Court subordinate to such [ligh Court and in rvhich no appeal iies thereto, and if such subordinate Court appears- (a) to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or (b) to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or (c) to have acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, the High Court may make such ord'er in the case as it thinks ht: 8 CRP No.4 77 20 ;,-:+! l)rovided thi\t the t{igh Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the coursc ol a suit or othcr proceeding, except where tl)e order, if iL had becn made in lavour of the party applying for r-cvision would have hnalh. disposed o[ lhe suit or other proceedings (2) The High Court sl.rali r.rot, under this section, vriry or reversc any decrcc or order against u'hich an appeal lics,rither to the lligh Court or to anv Cotrrt subordinate thercto. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of sr.rit or other proceeding before thc Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the Hrgh Court. Explanattotl. -ln this section, the cxpression "an5, car;e which has been decided" includes any order made, or any ordr:r deciding an issue ilr tlte course o[ a suit or other proceeding. h) I[ at all the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction not vestecl in it by law or if it has failed to excrcise jurisdiction or it has acted in the exercise of jurisdiction illegally, only then rhe High Court shall interferc wilh the trial Court proceedings. In the present case, it cannot be said that the trial Court has exercised jurisdiction urhrch is not vested in it or has also nor actecl illegally or wiLh any mat.crial irrcgularity. i) Thus, thr: ordcr docs not call for any intr:l ference under Section 115 of CI)C. However, in view of the or.rlers passed in E.A.No. 15 of 2024, the revision petitloners herein can conte st the E.P. Poir-rt No. I is ans\\'crcd accordingly. 9 CRP No.477 2025 ,/'

11. POINT NO.2: In view of the frnding arrived at point No.1, the Civii Ilevision Petition is dismissed upholding the order dated 31.07 .2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Jayashankar IStrupalapally District. There shall be no order as ro costs. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shali stand closed To, SD/. AHMED ABDULLAH KHAN SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER '1 . The Senior Civil Judge, Jayashankar Bhupalapally district, at Bhupalapally 2. One CC to SRI KATRAPATI SATYANARAYANA, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI G RAMACHANDRA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI R GOPI MOHAN, Advocate IOPUC] 5. Two CD Copies ADK Kr HIGH COURT DATED:2910412025 ORDER GRP.No.477 ot 2025 C 1HE S14 / € o7 $( 24JUil m o I I I i i DISMISSING THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS + .ot@ fr-"