High Court · 2025

Petition ulder 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 grant stay of all further pioceedings in E.P.No.3 o12027 in O.S. No.1465 of 2003 on in" ru" oi the principal ienior Civil Judge, Malkajgiri District, at Kushaikguda. Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri K.Ramachandra' Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Sri A.Ravikiran Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 to 4: -- The Court made the following: ORDER -.1{f.:t. ?-1* a -r HON'BLI SiI-U .IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHITTY Ctvll- RIIVISION PETITON No.2489 of 2021 ORDER: Thir; llir i Revision Petition is filed assailing Lhc ,rrder, dated l8.0ri.l() 21. passed by the Principal Senior Ci.il JLrdge, Medchal-N4alkrj :iri District at Kushaiguda in E.A.lJo.4l r>l 2024 in EA.No.i1 ol 2023 in EP.No.3 of 2021, whererrnder. rhe application ll ecL r- nder Section 151 CPC praying the Court [o issue notice to 'e rp,,r rden[ Nos.2 to 4 in the Claim Pet tior'l rvas dismissed

2. Ilearrl ir ll.Ramachandra, leamed counsel for th: t.e.,,ision petitioners rn d 5,t i A.Ravi Kiran, learned counsel lor r,:spo ndent No.1/decree -l clccr

3. The petiticrers herein are the claim petitioners ancl th,:.1 liled Claim Petition ir E.A.No.5l oi 2023 claiming rights ovr.r. rhe schedule Ir:op lr-.i by way of unregistered documer t hrrying purchased the ;rune from respondent No.4 hercinlJ .Dr.'{o.4 Hencc, ther j r:,1 I-..A.No.4O of 2024 seeking to issue noti:e to respondent lrlos.l r-o 4 herein on the ground that they are pronc,r and necessaly Fal t,o:i fbr adjudication of the Claim Petiriol. 'lhe t ? --t l j 2 :) LNA, J cRI'.No.2489 oJ2024 Executing Court vide impugned order dismissed the said application on the ground that respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein have already been set ex parte and have suffered decree and that, there is no challenge to the said decree and as such, there is no requirement or necessity to issue notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein for adjudication of the Claim Petition filed by the petitioners herein.

4. Leamed counsel for the petitioners contended that since the claim petitioners are basing their claim solely on the document said to have been executed by respondent No.4 herein/J.Dr.No'4 in their favour, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are necessary parties for proper adjudication of the Claim Petition, therefore, notice ought to have been given 1o them and further, no prejudice will be caused to respondent No. i/D.FIr herein in the event of issuance of notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4.

5. Per contra, leamed counsel for respondent No'1/D.Hr. contended that the Claim Petition has to be adiudicated basing on the pleadings and material placed on record by the petitioners and the petitioners have to prove their case only basing on the strength of the documents adduced by them against the D.Ilr and not { t ( 1 3 I,NA, J CRP.No 2,tll9 of 2024 against tt'e .l j)r s, rvho already suffered decree, and thercfb .e, there is no requiri, r r(rnt for issuance of notice to respondent }.los.2 to 4/J.Drs i,n, 1 i I an1, event, their presence is n,ct rcquir.ed for adjLrdicarlr''r : lrc Clairn Petirion.

6. Perus al rl record would disclose that in the Clainr )etition i.e., E.A.'\,r.: , of 2023, the petitioners contended tf at rhey are bonafi de r )u rc .r r sers from respondent No.4/J.Dr.No. 4 ar: d rh,lrefore, respondelt I'Jos.2 to 4 are proper and necessarl palics to the proceediurs :,,r;h31 thg Claim Petition filed by the perrri0nors can be adjuditirt-' I rr l.ropst- perspective. 7. In 'tht. irtpugned order, the Executing Cour.t has rccorded reasons lot I i:;missal of the application and obscn.e d that respondent \ o; 2 to 4 who suffered decree wer.e, in firct, set ex parte lrnC t terefbre, there is no requirement Ibr issuance of notice to trc nr rrr-rd in any event, the presence of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is not r,rrr rir.ed for adjudication of the Claim petiti,r, frled by the petitionc s 8 The ExrcLrting Court has relied upon the judgrent of the Honble Su1,r:,",. aorn ) ln Chitturi Subbammu l,'s. Kudapa I : I i I 4 LNA, J CRP.No.2489 of2024 Subbanna antl otherst, wherein it is held that when a party omits to raise any objection to direction given by the Court in its judgment, failed to appear, it is deemed to have waived his right and he cannot challenge the court's direction and dismissed the application.

9. [n the case on hand, the Executing Court in the impugned order obserued that in the EP proceedings, notice was issued to respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the same was served on them, but they failed to appear and hence, they were set ex parte. Further, a warrant was also issued to the bailiff for delivery of possession of schedule propefty to respondent No.l/D.Hr and when the baililf visited the schedule property, at that stage, the petitioners filed the Claim Petition.

10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Claim Petition filed by the petitioners has to fall or stand on its own merits and material placed on record. I 1. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned counsel for respondent t- tpra rsos sc r:zs \ n I ) I,,NA, J ,lRP.,\0. i4 tl9 0/ 2024 No.lID.Hr, rlris Court does not find any reasorr or gr(rund to interfere w tli t.re well-reasoned order passed bv the l.,x:cuting Court an,l r:ur;ordingly, the Revision petition is litble to be dismissed

12. In tlre re sr lt, the Civil Revision petition is dis nisseci 13. Perd nl miscellaneous applications, if an1,, :;hall stand closed. Nc, co;t:t / /TRUECOPY/ / sd/- ,. VTJAYA AXMI ASSISI ANT RE STRAR SI]CTION OFFICER To, 1 Ih" P_rinc-pr1 ienio. Civil Judge, Medchal_Malkajgiri t,istrist at Kushaiguda 2. One CC to liri ](.Ramachandra, Advocate [OPUC]. 3. One CC to .(iri ,\.Ravikiran, Advocate [OPUC]. 4. Two CD (icpi..; JCKIPR {- ,\ItE SI4.rt L ?tlJUN mfi i (,' . t { I r:" \ :'PriicHE HIGH COI]RT DATED:14/02/2021i ORDER CRP.No.2489 of 201',1 /.. /.,,' {irj 'llz \ Dismissing the C..I.i. -. rvithout costs. $\I [,r\ : I I I i I I I