The High Court · 2025

g Welfare Society, Represented by authorized Krishna, Joint Secretary, 3-5-855/7, First Floor, Petitioner/Decree Holder AND

1. M/s. Mamatha Projects private Limited, Rep. by its chairman and MD P.janaki Rama Rao, Adarshnagar, Opposite IDPL Colony, Balangar, Hyderabad. 2. K.Siddaiah, S/o. K. Ramaiah, Ex-president of Megacity housing welfare society, Residentof 1-10-5 11, Street No.3, Ashoknagar, Hyderabad ...RespondenUJudgment Debtor Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. C ROHINI SUNITHA Counsel for the Respondents: SRI P B VIJAY KUMAR The Court made the following: OROER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA cwtL REVISIOII PETITION No.1946 of 20L9 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.

2. 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.

3. 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 2 information shared by their counsel, tJle said property was situated in local limits of Hyderabad, under the territorial .1 \ 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.

4. 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 , r' 3 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.

5. 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

6. 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 4 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 subsequent to the closure of the E.P.No.S of 2O11 and the tralsfer of decree application is independent and it has to be dealt independently'

7. 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 raised certain 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 consideration the contentions of both 5 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.

8. Therefore, the Civil Revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any are pending, shall stand closed. SD/-L VIJAYA LAXMI ASSISTANT REG]STRAR 6 \ ,TTRUE COPYI/ SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The IAdditional District Judge' Rangareddy at LB Nager 2. One CC to Ms C Rohini Sunitha, Advocate IOPUC] 3. One CC to Sri P B V'rjay Kumar, Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies W NVB/ABK HIGH COURT DATED.10l1012025 ORDER CRP.No.1946 of 2019 I l, ) J i) < t * f tI .: 14 i4: s 03 riil m 2 .1 l>.' . t', r. \i}\ ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION 1 ,y \)/