The High Court · 2025

Petition under 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 direct the concerned authorities to stop further execution of documents pertaining to suit schedule property in OS No. 145 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Vikarabad, Vikarabad District. Counsel for the Petitioner : Sri Ravendar Samala Counsel for the Respondents : None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER IION'BLE SRIJUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2879 OF 2024 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the docket order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad in EP.No.33 of 2019 in OS.No.145 of 2005, by which the said EP was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri Ravendar Samala, leamed counsel for petitioner No representation on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice on them, therefore, the matter is being disposed of basing on the material placed on record.

3. The revision petitioner is decree-holder and respondents are judgment-debtors in the EP before the Executing Court.

4. Brief factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner filed a suit in OS.No. i45 of 2005 seeking the relief of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 18.11.2005 executed by respondents herein in respect of land admeasuring Acs.4.00 in Sy.No.l7 of Pudur Village, Acs.2.01 guntas in Sy.No.87 and Acs.2.36 guntas in Sy.No.89 of Gongupally Village, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad Eunga Reddy) District. The trial Court, on due consideration of the material available on record, passed ex parte a4' I I 2 LNA, J CRP.No.2879 of 2024 decree on 16.02.2010 and directed the respondents to execute registered sale deed conveying the suit schedule property in favour of the petitioner herein within a period of one month by receiving the balance sale consideration. The respondents did not comply with the decree passed by the trial Court, therefore, Execution Petition in EP.No.33 of 2019 was filed and since the respondents/J.Drs did not come forward for execution of registered sale deed, the Executing Court has appointed an officer. for execution ol' sale deed on behalf of the J.Drs in favour of the petitioner/D.Hr. However, it appears that there were certain technical glitches in Dharani portal, therefore, the sale deed could not be registered and matter was adjoumed from time to time Ultimately, the matter was posted on 29.02.2024 finally for registration. On that day, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner/D.Hr, hence, the EP was dismissed for default. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed.

5. Leamed counsel for the revision petitioner/D.Flr contended that sale deed could not executed because of certain technical glitches in Dharani portal and in fact, the Tahsildar has addressed letter dated Ni1.05.2025 to Collector. Vikarabad District and also I -) LNA, J CRP.No.2E79 of 2024 letter dated 06.06.2020 to Deputy Inspector General, Medchal- Malkajgiri highlighting the issues being faced in registration of sale deed and seeking guidance in the matter. He further contended that even the D.Hr has addressed letter dated 06.07.2023 to the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration seeking directions to District Collector for taking immediate and necessary steps to execute EP.No.33 of 2019. He further contended that despite the best efforts of the petitioner as well as the Tahsildar concemed, the technical issues could not be rectified and thereby, the sale deed could not be executed. The Executing Court, without considering the aforesaid factual background ofthe case and the issues faced by the Tahsildar in implementing the EP and executing the sale deed, erroneously disrnissed the EP by the impugned order. Learned counsel fufther contended that the EP has to be implemented by the Executing Court and the role of the petitioner/D.Flr is minimal and for no fault of the petitioner/D.Hr, the Executing Court dismissed the EP and therefore, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 6- A perusal of record would disclose that on filing of EP, the trial Court, in fact, addressed letter dated 18.1 1.2022 to Tahsildar- l 4 LNA, J CRP.No.2879 of 2074 cum-Joint Sub-Registrar, Pudur Mandal, Vikarabad District, authorizing a Senior Assistant of the Court for execution of sale deed on behalf of the J.Drs in favour of the petitioner/DFlr. It is also evident that the petitioner/D.Hr has also pursued the matter with the Chief Commissioner, Land Administration, seeking necessary directions to expedite the execution of sale deed. Further, the Tahsildar has also addressed letters to the District Collector as well as the Deputy Inspector General, Medchal-Malkajgiri District, seeking guidance and necessary instructions for registration of sale deed as there are certain technical issues/glitches in Dharani portal.

7. Perusal of record further reveals that the Executing Court has directed the Tahsildar for execution of sale deed expeditiously and also appointed an officer to attend and complete the registration. However, it appears that due to technical glitches, the sale deed could not be executed and in fact, there is no default or fault on the part of the petitioner/D.Flr for non-execution of the sale deed and obviously for the reasons beyond his control or domain. As such, the Executing Court ought not to have dismissed the EP. Consequent to dismissal of EP, the petitioner/D.F{r is deprived of enjoying the fruits ofdecree of the suit passed in his favour. I I I ) LNA, J CRP.No.2879 of 2024

8. In the light of the above, this Court is of the oonsidered opinion that the Executing Court has hastily passed the impugned order which is ex facie illegal, improper and erroneous and as such, the same is liable to be set aside.

9. Accordingly, this Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the docket order dated 29.02.2024 passed by the Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad in EP.No.33 of 2019 in OS.No.145 of 2005 and the said EP is restored to file.

10. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shatl stand closed. No costs. / To, SD/. MOHD. IS L ASSISTANT REGIST AR w SECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY//

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Vikarabad, Vikarabad District. 2. One CC to Sri Ravendar Samala, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies DLlPSL w - l I I i I I i t' \ \ I HIGH COURT DATED:24103t2025 I ORDER \ CRP.No.2879 ot 2024 1\{g 5TA r'{j Y q ) I i I '?,.7/ i O3 APfi ?06 Ci ,\' ,lggparC.$ 6O \ \ ttLowtNc THE c.R.P. 'l( b