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 condone the delay of 45 days in filing c.R.P.No.2650 of 2025 filed against the order in E.A.No.125 of 2017 in E.P.No.86 of 2013 in O.S.No.264 of 2012 dated2T-02-2025. lA NO: 2 oF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit titeo in supiort of tt'" p"iittn i1e 5igL Court-may-be gt^ease! l1 .i*ir* Lra.r passed in- r,c.No ris of 2017 in E P No 86 of 2013 and tn o'slr.r".io+ oizoiz ort"a'zl oiizs on the file of Principal senior civil Judge Kothagudem Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI P'PRABHAKAR REDDY Counsel for the ResPondents:-- The Court made the following: ORDER I I I I I I I i I I 'iI I I I I I a THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTTCE J. SREENIVAS RAO I.A No. 1 of 2025 In and CTYIL REVISION PETITION No.265O of 2o25 COMMON ORDER: I.A. No. I ol 2025 is filed by the petitioners to condone the delay of 45 days in hling ihe Civil Revision Petition (for short cRP).

2. The C.R.P No.2650 of 2025 is filed by the petitioners, aggrieved by the order dated 27.O2.2O25 in E.A. No'125 of 2Ol7 in E.P. No.86 of 2013 in O.S. No.264 of 2012, passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem.

3. Heard Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. After perusing the impugned order passed by the learned Executive Court, this Court does not hnd any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order dated 27.02.2025.

5. In view of the same, this Court is not inclined to issue notice to the respondent in I.A. No.1 of 2025 and has heard the case at the admission stage.

6. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.264 of 2012, as absolute owners of the suit schedule seeking declaration I I I I I I I I z- propert]' arrd recovery of possession from the respondent- .. t. defendant. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 22'04'2O13' Pursuant to the decree, the petitioners filed E'P' No'86 of 2013' The Eriecuting Court delivered tile scheduled property, and ti're E.P. was allou,ed on 12.06.2013 by vt'a, oi p:'-chanama' The schedule property was delivered in favor of the petitioners on

26.O8.2013.

7. Meanwhile, the respondent-defendant fiied I'A' No'986 of 2O13 seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree, tlated 22 04'2013' The said application u'as allo',.t'ed on 16.03.2015, and the order has become hna-l. Subsequently, the respondent-judgment debtor filed E.A. No.125 of 2017, seeking restitution of possession of the schedule property. B. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem, after hearing both parties, allowed the tr.A. on 27'02'2025' Aggrieved by the order, the CRP is hled. g. Sri P. Prabhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the suit schedule property was delivered in favour of the petitioners through the Court on26.08.2073 and that the petitioners have been in possession since then. The respondent is therefore not entitled to seek restitution of the possession of the said property through E.A. No.l25 of 2017, which was filed \ \-/ :f- -2 alter a lapse of four years. The Executing Court, without properly corsidering the petitioners' contentions, erroneously allowed the E.A., which is contrary to law. i0. Having heard the submissions and upon perusal of the material on record, it is un4isouted fact that O.S. No.264 of 2012 filed by the petitioners was decreed on 22.04.2013. The Executing Court in E.P. No.86 of 2OI3 delivered possession of the schedule property to the petitioners uide panchanama, dated

28.06 .2013, and the petitioners have been in possession since then. The record further discloses that the respondent filed I.A. No.986 of 2Ol3 seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated

22.04.2013, which was allowed on 16.03.2015, and the said order has become f,rnal, pursuant to the above said order, the suit proceedings are going on

11. Subsequently, the respondent filed E.A. No.125 of 2Ol7 seeking restitution of possession of the schedule property by invoking Section 144 of tl:re Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which reads as follows: Section L44 of CPC: Application for restitution : (1) Where ald in so far as a decree [or an order] is [varied or reversed in any appeai, revision or other proceeding or is set aside or modified in a$.,Fuit instituted for the purpose, the Court q- which passed the decree or order shall, on the application of any party entitled to ary beneht by way of restitution or otherwise, cause such restitution to be made as will, so far as may be, place the parties in the position which they would have occupied but for such decree or order or such part thereof as has been varied, reversed, set aside or moJiiied; ar:d. for this purpose, the Court may make.. an1' .;r-ders. including orders for the refund of costs and for the payment ol interest, damages, compensation and mesne prohts , which are properly [consequential on such variation, reversal, setting aside or modification of the decree or order. (2) No suit shall be instituted for the purpose of obtaining any restitution or cther reliel which could be obtained by application under sub- section (1).

72. The above said provision clearly reveals that parties are entitled to apply for restitution of possession. In the case on hand the schedule property was deiivered in favour of the petitioners pursuant to the ex-parte decree dated 22.04 .2013 , which was later set aside on 16.O3.2015 in I.A. No.986 of 2013, the respondent-defendant filed application tr.A. No.125 of 2017 invoking the provisions of Section 144 of CPC. Accordingly, the learned Executing Court rightly allowed the application. I 3. This Court does not find any illega1ity, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the order dated 27 .O2.2O25 to exercise the ..,,.-.1 a i -5. jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of CPC. Hence, both I.A. ald CRP are liable to be dismissed.

14. The l:arned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to direct the Court below to dispose of the suit by fixing time Iimit as the suit pertaining b 2Al?

15. Taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court deems it appropriate to the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kothagudem is directed to dispose of the suit i.e., O.S. No.264 of 2Ol2 as expeditiously AS possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties are directed to cooperate with the Court below for disposal of the suit without seeking undue adjournments

16. With the above said directions, I.A. No.l of 2025 and the Civil Revision Petition are dismissed accordingly. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. SD/- P.PONNA KRISHNA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge Kothagudem. 2. One CC to Sri P.Prabhakar Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies NVB/PSL Vk- HIGH COURT DATED:0410912025 COMMON ORDER l.A.No.1 of 2025 In/And CRP.No.2650 of 2025 1 t STA a) '.) \j tt * t)t DISMISSING THE CRP AND l'A'No'1 OF 2025 -l

5.oQgL **