V. Sajjan Raj Choudhary, S/o v. Choloram Choudhary, Aged. about

Petition under section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated rn the affidavit fired in support of the petition, ine-Hign court may be preased to go"t stay of all further proceedings in E.p. No. 3 of zbzt rn o.s. ito. i+os or 2001 on the file of Honorabre principar Senior civir Judge, Markajgiri District , at Kushaikguda and pass Counsel for the Petitione(s):SRl. K Ramachandra Counsel for the Respondents: A. Ravi Kiran The Court made the following: ORDER J TION'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITO N No.2466 of 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision petition is filed assailing the order, dated 18.06.2024, passed by the principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri Districr at Kushaiguda in E.A.No.7 of 2024 in EA.No.52 of 2023 in EP.No.3 of 2021, whereunder the application filed under Section 151 CPC praying the Court to issue notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 in the Claim petition was dismissed. 2. Heard Sri K.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri A.Ravi Kiran,, leamed counsel for respondent No.l/D.Hr. J The petitioners herein are the claim petitioners and they filed Claim Petition in E.A.No.52 of 2023 claiming rights over the schedule property by way of unregistered document having purchased the same from respondent No.4 herein/J.Dr.No.4. Hence, they filed E.A.No.1 of 2024 seeking to issue notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein on the ground that they are proper and necessary parties for adjudication of the Claim petition. The Executing Court vide impugned order dismissed the said 2 LNA, J CRP.No.2466 of2024 :l application on the ground that respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein have already been set ex pdrte 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. Learned 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 to them and further, no prejudice will be caused to respondent No.l/D.Hr herein in the event of issuance of notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.l/D.Hr. contended that the Claim Petition has to be adjudicated 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.Hr and not against the J.Drs, who already suffered decree, and therefore, there 3 LNA, J CRP.No.2466 o12024 is no requirement for issuance of notice to respondent Nos.2 to 4/J.Drs and in any event, their presence is not required for adjudication of the Claim Petition.

6. Perusal of record would disclose that in the Claim Petition i.e., E.A.No.52 of 2023, the petitioners contended that they are bonafide purchasers from respondent No.4/J.Dr.No.4 and therefore, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are proper and necessary parties to the proceedings so that the Claim Petition filed by the petitioners can be adjudicated in proper perspective

7. In the impugned order, the Executing Court has recorded reasons for dismissal of the application and observed that respondent Nos.2 to 4 who suffered decree were, in fact, set ex parte and therefore, there is no requirement for issuance of notice to them and in any event, the presence of respondent Nos.2 to 4 is not required for adjudication of the Claim Petition filed by the petitioners.

8. The Executing Court has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chitturi Subbamma Vs. Kudapa 4 LNA, J CRP.No.2466 of 2024 Subbanna and 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. In the case on hand, the Executing Court in the impugned order observed 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 ofpossession of schedule property to respondent No.l/D.Hr and when the bailiff 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 1 1. Having considered the submissions made by leamed counsel for the petitioners as well as leamed counsel for respondent 1 run t96s sc t:zs 5 LNA, J CRP.No.2166 of2024 No.l/D.Hr, this Court does not find any reason or ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order passed by the Executing Court and accordingly, the Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.

13. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No costs. ItfRUE COPYII Sd/- L. LAKSHMI BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER I To, 1 The Pri (with re ncipal cords if any) -Senior Civil Judge, Medchat_Malkajgiri District, at Kushaiguda

2. One CC to SRl. . Ramachandra, Advocate tOpUCl 3. One CC to SRl. A.Ravi Kiran, Advocate tOpUCI 4. Two CD Copies w 1 i i l HIGH COURT DATED:1410212025 l \ e) c ---- ( 2 7 ,lutl m ! i ( * oFspa'rc ORDER CRP.No 2466 of 2024 CIIVIL RITVISION Plr'fl]'lON IS DISMISSIjT) 5 l(" lv lar