The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the c rcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to stay all further proceedings in E.A. No. 7 of 2C21 in E.P. No. 163 of 2015 in O.S. No. 378 of 2010 dt. 1710212021 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: _ _ _ The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER clvlL REVISION PETITION NO: 457 OF 2021 Petition under Article 1 15 of Civil Procedure Code ai3ainst the Order dated 1710212021 Passed in E.A. No. I of 2021 in E.A. No. 16312015 in O.S. No. 378 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, ltlizamabad. Between: Ashok Kumar Gupta, S/o. Gyanchand Gupta, Age.61 ye;rrs, Om Business, R/o C/o. Delhiwala Sweet Home, R.P. Road, Nizamabad, 503001. ...PETITIONER/JDR AND Mamidi Prakash , IVlanchala Prakash, s/o. Ramulu, Age. 60 years, Occ. Business, R/o. H.No. 7-10-96, Rashtrapathi Road, Nizamabad. ...RESPONDENT/DECREE.HOLDER lA NO: 1 OF 2021 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Coui't may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in E.A. No. B of 2021 in E.P. No. 163 of 2015 in O.S. No. 378 of 2O1O dt. 17.02.2021 on the file of the court of Principal Junior civil Judge, N izamabad. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER :ltiti t) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR CML REVISION PETITION Nos.441 456 AND 457 0F 2021 COMMON ORDER Since the lls invo[r,cd in all thcse threc Civil Revision Petitions js inLcrtrvincd and as Lhc partrcs lo thc proi:eeclings arc one ancl thr: san-rc, all Ihc (livil llcvision Pcl.iti,rns arc being disposed r>f b1 lhis common orclt:r- C.R.P. No.44l of 2O2I

2. 'l'his Civil Revision Pelition is dirccted againsL Lhc order in tr.A. No.6 ot2O2l in IJ.t']. No.163 ol 2015 in O.S. Nio.37E ot20lO on the file of Principal .Iunior Civrl .tudgc, Nizamabacl C.R.P. No.456 of 2OZ]':

3. Civil l?r:vjsion Petilron N-o-455 of 2O2l is til.rd against Lhe docket order clated 17 .02.202 I in Fl.A. No.7 c,,f 2t)21 in 8,.1,. No.l63 of 2015 in O.S. No.378 of 2O10 whcre by tt,c rlourt beiorv had dismissed the pctitioti filcd by the defe nclar-rt /JDr unde r Order XXI Ilule 26 rcad with Scction I 5 1 of C. )C to stay all further exccution proceedirrgs pcnding consicleration of objcctions frled unocr Ordcr X.Xl Rulc 97 Cl'}C t,'frch was thc subjecL mater of Ii.A. Nc-r.6 of 2O2i. I 2 C.R.P. No.457 of 202t:

4. Civil Revision Petition No.457 of 2O2l is fited against the docket order dated 1 7 .O2.2O21 in Ft.A. No.g of 2027 in ll.p. No.163 ol 20 15 rn O.S. No..17n ,)[ ,11() rr hc.rt.bl tl-ur Court bckrw dismissed the petition filed b1, thc dcfendar-rt/JDr under Section 151 CPC to recall the warrant issued under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC by considcring thc objections filed under Ordcr XXI Rule 97 CPC the subject matter of E.1,. No 6 ot 2O2t.

5. The plainLiff liled the subject suit for eviction of the defendant from the suit sc[-redulc- propcrt.v bcaring No.7-10-996 and recovcry ol arrcars ol [cnt.

6. tlcard Sri V. Satyam l?cdd1,, learncd CounseI for the revision petitioncr and Sri Y.S. Yella Nand Gupta, learr-red Counsel appearing fcrr the respondcnt and perused the rccord.

7. The petitioner in all Lhese Civil llevision Petitions is the Judgment Debtor (JDr)/defendant in lI.l). and the respondent herein is the Decree llotdcr (l)hr)/plainrifl in tr.I). No.163 of

8. The parties are rcferred to as per thc position in the suit. t'i t:. l 3

9. Civil Revision Petition No.441 of 202 I is filerl a.ggrieved by the order dalcd 17.O)-.'2O'21 in ll.A. Nri.6 ol 202 v;hcrcbr. thc underiying application lilod bv thr: clefcndant in tl-re suit under Order XXI Ruie 97 CPC is dismissed

10. The del'endant in the suit file d the underlyi-rg application raising objections to the show cause notice issue<l tLnder Order XXI Rule 35 CPC dated 05.0i.202 1 whcrcby thc clefr:ndarrt who is JDr in the afcrresaid suit is dircctcd Lo put thc p.aintJff/DHr in posscssion of thc sr-rit schcdr-rlc Ilropcrtv t.o r1r1 cxterlt ol 440 squarc fcct consistrng oi hali, onc r()om and open placc in lronl of hall and room lorming part of first floor of RCC r;ofed housc bearing No.7- lO-996, RP road, Nizamabad city, arlmeasuring 440 square feet, pursuant to order dated 14.02.2O20 rn E.P No.163 of 2015 in O.S. No.378 of 201O 1 1. The delbndanL in thc aforcsaid suiL who is the J.Dr l-rad liled thc u rrdcrlying inl.crlocntorv applic:,it ion be[:;rt: thc Court bcloq,claiming ther.L the schcdulc: ol propcrty menti,tned in the notice issucd under Order XXI Rulc 35 CI']C is sutrje,:t matter of a suit liled in O.S. No.61 of 2016 and, as such, the schedr,rle of property cannot be directed to be put in possessi:rn o[ the DHr by delive rin g \ircanl posscssion. I 4

12. lt is also the furthcr casc ol the dcfr:ndant that the JDr is tenant of the plaintiff/ DIJr in thc suit bearing No.7-10-996, while the defcndant is also tenant of another property belonging to one Krishna Rani bearing housc No.7-10 993/ 1 and as such both the properties are diflerent and distinct and thus, the petitioner/J.Dr cannot be directcd to dcliver thc possession of Lhe schedule propcrty to Lhe rcspor-rdcnt/l)llr.

13. The pc titior-rer/ J D r furthcr conLcndcd that rhe plaintilf had filed Lhc suit ag:rinsL Lhc dcf er-rdarrt/J. Dr iL-r respect of House bearing No.7- 1O-996, whilc Lhe propcrty ol thc plaintiff/ DHr is bearing No.7-10,910 whir:h omissiorr uras not noticed by him althrough this period and as such the schedulc of property for which the plaintiff/Dllr obtained dccrcc cannot bc enforced.

14. Learncd Counscl :rppcarinq orr bchalf ol thc dcfendant/ JDr would submit tha[ Lhc Cortrt ]rclor,r. \\ rl.houl apprcciating the aforesaid fact had erroncously disrnissed thc underlying interlocutory application u,herebv tl-re objections under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC have been raised and thus seeks for setting aside the order passed in thc undcrlying interlocutory application. -- ^ rr-::rcr,

15. Per contra learned Counsel appearing rn behalf of respondent/ pLaintlff/ DHr rvould submit that thLe revision petitioner/ dei'endant/JDr has been protracting the litigation by [iling one application after the other, thereby clcprirring the plaintiff/ DI-Ir from enjoying the fruits of the decre e obtaine d by him and the underlying interlocutory application s one of such naturc. Tt is :rlso r--onlcndccl rllat thc dcfcndar t.,/,)Dr having lailcd in all his cfforLs in challcngirg Lhc juclgme nt arLd c.lccrcc in the suit uide O.S. No.378 of 2010 in thc first appeal uirie A.S. No.22 ol 2014, furthcr the Second Appeal fikrd bclorc thc Hon'ble High Court uide S.A. No.147 of 2Ol9 being dismissed uide order daLed 07 .06,20 I 9 and further challer gc before the Hon'blc Supreme Courl uide SLP(C) No.029298 ci 11019 nhich also ended in c{ismissal ulde ordcr datccl 16.1?_.,O19 I'r:rs fi1ec1 thc u n clcrl-r irq I.As.

16. Learned Counsr:l fc;r respondent rvould [u:ther contend that on the judgment and decree passed in thc su t O.S. No.378 of 2010 having attained finality, the plaintiff/DHr took steps to enjoy the fruits of decrec by liling execution pctition uide E.P. No.163 of 2015. It is contended by the respondent on the aforesaid lJ.l). lilecl by plaintiff/DHr being ordercd on

14.O2.2O2O, thc dcfcndant/.JI)r had assailed thc said ordcr I I 1 6 before this Court by filing C.R.I'. No.627 of 2O2O which also ended in dismissal on 27.17.2020

17. Learned Counscl for tlrc' plaintiff/DIlr u,ould lurther submit that thc defcndant/Jl)r rn orcler to frustrate the dccrcc obtained by the plaintitf/ I)llr has lilcd thc underlying interlocutory application raising obiections to the show cause notice issued under Order XXI Rute 35 CPC, without any valid basis.

18. It is also contended blr thc krarncd Counsel for respondent. that the claim ol tt-r" a"f"raorL lJ.l)r ollho plainLill/l)llr having obtained decree by mentioning a \\/rong house numbcr, and the fact having escaped lhe no[ice of the defenciant/J.Dr althrough this period from the year 2010 onu,ards even though he h:rd carried the matter upto the Supremc Court cannot be acccptccl as a justifiable ground at this point of timc.

19. It is further contended that the suiL schedulc propcrty of the suit uide O.S. No.378 of 20 l0 is onl.v to an extent of 440 square [eeL out of 600 squarc fcct, v.,l-rilc Lhc suit O.S- No.61 ol 2016 which the defendant/J.Dr claims to have taken on rent from one Krishna Rani which is also purchascd by the plaintiff subsequently and the subject mattcr of suil of the other suit is 1 only in respect of i 60 square feet and thus, lot,h the suit schedule properties are entirely different and di;tinct and for the said reason Lhc objcction of the clefendant/ .JDr that a suit is pending cannot be acceplr--d as valid objcction.

20. I-earnccl Counscl would lurLher conLend thal the Court belou, had considered all the aforesaid aspects rvhile adjudicating the unde rlying interlocutory applica tion and had rightll, dismissed and sceks for sustaining the orclcr dismissing Lhc oblcctions flled bv Lhe dcfcndant/.lDr under Orcl:r XX[ Rule 97 CPC.

21. I have ra,rl<cn noLc of thc rcspe<;llvo contcntioris urgcd

22. A[ thc outsct it is to bc r.roted that" l.he prcscnt case is une r'vhcrcin no effort is Ieft unturned by the defcndant in the suit to prevert t.hc DFIr lrorn enjoying the fruits of the de crr:e obtained bv him at all slagcs by making use of vario -Ls provisions ccrnlained irr thc CPC. (Scc: .Ajit Singh (D) Thr. Lrs. and others. V. Padrna Bhandari (D)r).

23. Thc rcspondcnt/ plainl iff/ I)l lr had filcd th: suit in the year 20 1 0 st:cking lor Lhe relie f of eviction of the d efe,ndant/JDr ' MANU/SCOR/ r 0gc)t l'2022 I : t I 8 from the suit schedule property and to recover the arrears of rent.

24. The suit schedule property is mentioned in thc suit reads as under "Suit Schedule Property: 'lhe R.C.C. Roofed portion consisting oI hall, onc room and opcn place in front of hall and room. forming part ol honsc of lsr lloor, lronL portion of building H.No. 710996, R.P. Road, Nizamabad (litl, 5O3OOt, exlent of ,t4O square [eer, bounded as follows: North: Tin shed olthe plaintrff Southr Rashtrpathi Road Easl: West- R. Shelty \\rall, llurldrnij Lthagl.a Laxmr porliolt atid 1O'rrrl. lloa.1 Lo Kurnarg:rll1,.'

25. In Lhe aforcsaid suit, Lhc j udgment. \\ as passed in favour of the plaintiff/ Dl-lr on 23.06.2014 and a decrec \\ras also drawn up. Upon the trial Court passing the judgmcnt in favour o[ the plaintiff/DHr, the defendant filed appeal uide A.S. No.22 of 2Ol4 urhich also was dismissed by the first Appellate Court on

20.O4.2OI9. On the Appellate Court dismissing the appeal fiied against the judgment and dccrec in O.S- No.378 of 2010, the dcfendant/JDr filcd Second Appr:al beforc thc Lligh Court of 9 Telangana urde S.A No. 1.1 '/ ol 20I 9 and thc sarLe cnded in dismissal on 07.O6.2O 19

26. The clcfcndant/JDr not being satished with the orders of the Lrial Court, the First Appellate Court and the High Court in Second Appcal choosc to prefer SLP before th: .A.pex Court assailing thc order of the High Courl in Second Appeal and the same also was dismissed by the Apex Court orr 16. 12.2OI9. 'l'hus, on tlir: t\pt'x Clourt. rlismisstr-rg thc Sl,I) pr,:lcrrcd bv the rlcfendant/.JI)r Ln Lhc suit. in sLrict senso Lhcrc should bc no impedrment for enlorcing Lhe dccrcc. 27 . However, on the plaintiff/ DI{r filing Executi rn Petition for enlorcement of thc judgmcnt and decree of the trie i (lourt u.hich has rcccived sranrp oI appror,,al upto the slage of .Apex Court uide SI-P(C) No 029298 of 2019, rhe defendanr./JDr filed app[cation unrlcr Se<'rion zi'l o1'()l)(] 1.o verily thc juriscliction of the tri:rl Courl. Lo pass rl<.crc<: in O.S. No.378 ol 20lO n,hich on being drsmissed u.:-rs carried in revision to Lhis Cor.rrt which also ended in dismrssal.

28. Thereaftcr, the Bxecuting Court had passer_1 order dated 14.O2.2O2O in the Ll.P. No.163 ol 2015 ordering Execution Petition. Llven at that stagc after a dccade frorn the date of I j I i , i 10 institution of the original proccedings for cviction, the defendant/JDr did not rclcnt and r:ontinuccl to persist with his efforts to dcprive the plaintiff/ DI,lr from e njoying the fruits of the decree obtained by him, as in rcsponse to the show cause notice issucd undcr Order XXI Itule 35 CpC for putting the plaintiff/DHr in possession of the suit schedule property, the dcfendant/JDr had filcd objections by way an inLerlocutory application under Ordcr XXI Itulc 9'l Cl,C claiming that the suil schedule properry, is the sr,rbjcct mattcr of O.S. No.61 ol 2016 lilcd by thc plaintiff/ I)l lr himself, \\,irhouL sraring rl-rat thc suil schedulc property of the aforesaid suit is only in rcspect of 160 square feet formrng part of 600 square feet of House bearing No.7- 10-996, RP Road, Nizamabad city and thus, thc sccond suiL O.S. No.61 of 2016 is no way connected to thc execution of tlre decree obtained by thr: plaintiff/ DI lr in re spect of 44O square feet ouL o[ 600 square fcct forming part ol thc same housc number i.e.,7-10 99(;.

29. The Court below whilc considering the underlying interlocutory application filed by the defendant/JDr under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC had considered the aforesaid aspect and clearly noted the finding that the E.P. schedule property is to an exlent of 440 square feet out of 600 square feet, n,hile the :.il II , schedule sho$,n in O.S. No.61 (f 2016 is the flrnt portion of building bearing l-lousc No.7- 10-996 to an extent ot 160 square leet out o[ f;00 squar(] liret arc not onc anci tht srrme. Apart from thc iLbovc thc (lolrrt also obscr'",cd that th(' r:larm of [he dcfcndantr'.JI)r'slross llis ill inlcntion to obstrllol tlre cxcculion proceedrng,s

30. The s:rrd l-irrdrrrg rccor<lcd lr-v [hc Court bcl ,rv in the light ol thc albrcsarcl cliscussion, in thr: considerc<l vir;rr ( f this Court docs not- sr-tffcr lrom matcrial illcgality or pcrvcr;it'r or to hold lhat Lh.r Court irclo,,l' t:xcrcisirrg .lurisdiction t haL r a; not vested rn rt u'arranLirrg intcrlirrcnct: bv this Court n exercise of re\,1slon:lt1 po\\('rs undcr Scclion 1 l5 of Cl)Cl. 'I'lrr-r:,, this CourL is ol'tirc' r'iCu lhirt tlr( ()r.i('r (rl-ilr( CoLrrl bclou' tj,.,. r- not czLIl for anr, inlt'rl-ercncc iLncl lllLls- 1lr(' r( \,rsion has to Iail 3 1 . Accorclingll , thc Crvil lievision [)etrLion No. ] zl [ <>l' 202 I is disrnisscd. -lhc c]ockr:L ordcr datcd 17.O2.2O2 t in lI.A. No.6 of 2O2l it L'l.l). No.163 ol 2O1l> in O.S. No.378 of 201O is sustained. No order as to costs

32. In vicu oI tl.rr: ordcr passr:d b1, this Court ir Civil Revision I)ctition No.4.l I ol'2021 lrgirinsr. llrr: ordcr in li.A. N,r.6 ol 202 1, 12 these Civil Revision petitions i.e., C.R.p. Nos.456 and 457 of 2027 also fail and are accordingly dismissed. Consequcntl5r, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall sLand closed. SD/-M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad 2. One CC to SRI V SAryAM REDDY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI Y S YELLA NAND GUPTA Advocate IOPUC] 4. Two CD Copies SS/PSI- t: HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 $ 1 o c s rn ri. c trJt SiP zffi 0 3 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.441,456 & 457 of 2021 DISMISSING ALL THE C.R.P.s %