Heard Mr v. Aravind

... Respondents /Respondents(L.Rs.of Decree Holder/Plaintiffs)

6. M. Harish (Died), (No L Rs. ) ...RespondenU Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the crrcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant Stay of all further Proceedings in the E P.No.379 ot 2022 in O.S. No.830 of 2001, on the file of Senror Civil Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, pending disposal of the CRP. CRP.No.3692 of 2024 'Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia aggrieved by the order dated 13.08.2024 in E P No 379 of 2022 in O.S.No 830 of 2001, Dated fi.OA.2024 on the frle of court of the Senior Civil Judge-Cum Assistant Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally. Between: 1 2 M.Laxmi Bai, Wo M.Hanumantha Rao, aged about 51 years, occ. Housewife, Rlo 4-32-2i1 (Old No.32-4a5) Plot N0 484lA, Phase-t, Allwyn colony, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District M.Sai Rani, D/o M. Hanumantha Rao, aged about 32 years, Rlo -4-32-231 (Old No.32445) Plot No.484/A, Phase-I, Allwyn colony, Kukatpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District) 3- M. Kalyani, D/o Hanumantha Rao, aged about 30 years, R/o 4-32-231 (Old No.32-445) Plot No.484/A, Phase-|, Allwyn colony. Krr atpally, Balanagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ...Petitioner/Claim Petitioners irr lP.No.379 ot 2022 AND

1. Hanumantha. Rao, S/o Ramarah, aged 54 years, occ. Serr ce, R/o H.No.18- 75-95/6, Viveknandanagar, Chatrinaka, Hyderabad-053. 2 P.Vidya Sagar (died) per L.Rs ), Hyderabad(Plaintiff rn C) S No 830 of 2001 3. P.Sandya Rani, Wo Late P Vidya Sagar Rao, aged abor,l 53 years, occ. Household, R/o Quarter No. D5, IDPL Colony, Balanagar Hyderabad-500007 - cwnship,

4. P.Gopi Krishna, S/o Late P. Vidya Sagar Rao, aged about ]1 years occ Medical Practitioner, R/o Quarter No. D5, IDPL Colony. B: anagar Township, Hyderabad-500007

5. P. Jyostna, D/o Late P.Vidya Sagar Rao. aged about 33 )( ars, occ household, R/o Quarter No. D5, IDPL Colony, Balanagar 1 rwnship, Hyderabad-500007 (Respondents 3 to 5 are L.Rs. of the deceased 2nd respo denVP.Vidya Sagar. ) . . . Res pondents/Respondents (L.Rs. of Decr(,r Holder/Plaintiffs) 6 M.Harish (Died) (No L.Rs.), Hyderabad ...Res pc rdenURespondent lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section the affidavit filed in support 151 CPC praying that in the circL nstances stated in of the petition, the High Court ray be pleased to suspend the order passed in 08-2024 on the file of the Medcha l-Malkajgiri District at E.P.N0.379 of 2022 in O.S No.83 ) of 200, dated 'l 3- Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assista r Sessions Judge, Kukatpally. Counsel for the Petitioners in all CRP's: SRI VENTRAPRAG r DA ARAVTND Counsel for the Respondents in All CRP's: SRI MD HIMAD I, ,SHA The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER IN THE COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITO IN NOS.2579 2595 and 3692 of 2024 23RD DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 C.R.P.No.2579 of 2024 Between: M. Laxmi Bai and 2 others ... Petitioners / petitioners/ appellants/ ciaim petitioners M. Hanumantha Rao and 5 others . .. ResPondents/ resPondents (LRs of decree holder/ Plaintiff) C.R.P.No.2595 of 2O24 Between: M. Laxmi Bai and 2 others .. . Petitioners/ petitioners/ plaintiffs M Hanumantha Rao and 5 others . . . Re sPondents / resPondents (LRs of decree holder/plaintiffs) C.R.P.No. 3692 of 2o24 Between: M. Laxmi Bai and 2 others . . . Petitioners / ciaim petitioners \ 1 '1 i'1 2 M. Hanumantha Rao and 5 others . . . Respondents/ rr: ;pondents (LRs of decree holder/p1 rintlff/defendantl COMMON ORDER:

1. Heard Mr. V. Aravind, learned counsel f rr the petitioners and Mr. G.M.Ravi Kumar,,learned counsel forespondent Nos.3 to5

2. The parties to all the Civil Revision Pet.r Lons are one and the same and the petitions are filed on similar- g rounds erggrieved by varlous proceedings that took place in cc r tinuation of the judgment and decree dated 1O.O2.2003 passec in O.S.No.B3O of 2001 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Juj4e, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar

3. The C.R.P.No.2579 of 2O24 is I) petitioners/appellants/claim petitioners aggrie r eferred b1' the :d bv tl-re order dated O3.07.2024 in I.A.No,615 of 2024 in S.No.3 of 2024 ^ pending on the file of the III Additional Distri<, Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, wherein, a pr: ition filed under Order XLI Ruie 5 (i) of CPC to grant stay of a1l fi-.; ther proceedings in E.P.No.379 of 2022 on the file of the Ser ior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, has bt:, n dismissed. ,i 3 The C.R.P.No.257 9 of 2024 is preferred by the petitioners/

4. claim petitioners to direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpall-v to take up the suit in O.S.No.405 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for calcellation of decree passed in O.S.No.BO3 of 2OO1 along with E'P'No'379 of 2022 rn O.S.No.B03 of 2001. 5 The C.R.P.No.3692 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/ claim petitioners aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 13 'O8 '2024 in trP No. 379 of 2022in O.S.No.B3O of 200 I Since parties to all the Civil Revision Petitions are one ar-td

6. the same and these petitions are hled aggrieved by the orders in case5 initiated in contimrance of judgment and decree dated 1O.O2.2003 passed in O.S.No.830 of 2O01 on the file of the I Addl' Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L'B'Nagar on similar grounds, all of them are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order. 7 The background facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/plaintiff (P. Vidyasagar) hled suit in O.S.No.830 of 200 1 seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale agalnst respondent No.1/defendant {M. Hanumantha Rao) and obtalned E;:. F i i I 4 ex-parte decree on LO.O2.2OO3. Thereafter, szu I Vidyasagar filed E.P.No.24 of 2OO5 and obtained registered sel : deed No.234 ol' 2006 dated 09.01.2006. Subsequently, plaintill lilecl E.I' No.9O of 2OO7 dated 04.06.2OO7 seeking delivery of por; ,ession of the suit schedule property. The revision petitioners r e. legal heirs of defendalt/JDR filed suit in O.S.No.405 of 1006 on the lile of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy Di: trict at L. B- Nagar rr"'ith a prayer to set aside the ex parte decre,: and judgment in O.S.No.830 ol 2OO 1 claiming right in the E.p sc: :dule propertv. B. During pcndency of E.p.90 of 2O07, thc r,r,ife ald children of the JDR Hanumantha Rao/defendant filec claim petition in E.A. No. 1 33 of 2OO7 for recali of warrant and E . for stay of all proceedings and said E.As u., \ No.134 of 2OO7 re dismissed on

01.04.2009. Thereafter, the revision petitioners, u,ho are the wife and children of the JDR, preferred Appeal vide lr S.No.1O3 of 2OO9 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Ran 1 a Reddy Districr and said appeal was also dismissed on 1g.03.2( said judgment and decree, the revision peli

14. Aggrieved b1. ioners preferred Second Appeai vide No.376 of 2Ol4 on the file , f this Court and said Second Appeal is currently pending. While t rings stood thus, E.P.No.9O of 2OO7 u,as dismissed for defauit <,. r 27.O1.'2O12 for 5 non-prosecution. Then, the decree holder/ plaintiff filed E.P.No.22i of 2Ol4 (New No.379 ot 2022\ on the I Additional Senior Civil Judge under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC for delivery of EP schedule property. Said tr.P was ordered on 06.07.2015. At that time, the revision petitioners filed E.A No.69 of 2015 under Order XXI Rule 98, 99 and 101 r/w Section 151 of CPC to recall the wzirralt for delivery of possession and also filed E.A.No.70 of 20 15 under Section 151 of CPC to stay aII further proceedings in the E.P. Said tr.As were allowed

9. Aggrieved by the common order dated 22.07.2015 in tr.A.Nos.69 and 70 in tr.P.No.22 I of 2Ol4 (New No.379 of 20221, the decree holder preferred Civil Revision Petition No.3914 of 2015 belore this court and said C.R.P was allowed setting aside the common order passed in the E.A.Nos.69 and 70 of 2015. In the C.R.P., it is held that there is a jurisdictional error committed and therefore, the C.R.P was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.3914 of 2015, the revision petitioners filed review petition and the sarne was dismissed on

07.06.2024. Then, again the revision petitioners filed claim petition vide by E.A.No.39 of 2022 in EP No.379 of 2022. Aggrieved by the order in E.A. No.39 of 2022, appeal suit vide \ .lI {r I i 6 I A.S.No.3 of 2024 was filed on the hle of the \ III Addl. District Judge, Rarga Reddy District. Along with the appeal suit, the petitioners filed I.A.No.615 of 2024 to gran . stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.379 of 2022. The learnerl III Addl. District Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District at Kukatpall y upon examining the sequence of judicial proceedings that have r aken place, held that the revision petitioners are not entitled t< stay in the trP I proceedings. It is hcld that grart of stay amount ; to scuttling the process of execution of decree, which was not >ermitted by the High Court in the order dated 17.10.2022 in ( RP No. 3914 of 2O 1 5. To sum Lrp, it is held that the petition€ s failed to show I prima facie case to stay further proceedings L E.P No.379 of 2022, hence, dismissed the I.A.No.615 of 2O2, in A.S.No.3 of 2024 filed to stay further proceedings in the E.P. Aggrieved by the same, the C.R.P.No.2579 of 2024 is preferred. 1O. In revrsion petitions, it is contented __ Lat the revision petitioners are in possession of immovable prop€r ty claiming legal title ald until their rights are adjudicated, the respondent No.2/decree holder cannot be permitted to take :ossession until the proceedings are terminated in favour of tir. decree holder. Further, it is pleaded that there is a matrimonia. lispute between /i /,/ ,) 7 the claim petitioners and respondcnt No.1/JDR and therefore, the respondent No. 1/JDR created and fabricated documents and a collusive suit is filed and decree is obtained behind the back of claim petitioners. The petitioners claim that they have preemptive rights and charge over the suit schedule properties as stipulated under Section 39 of Transfer of Property Act and the petitioners residing in the EP schedule property and therefore, the tmpugr-red order is liabie to be set aside. It further stated that the dccree in the suit lor specific performance was obtained by fraud and that the claim petitioners are not iiving with the judgment debtor for over two decades, as he is living in the village after completing his sentence in a criminal case 1 1. According to the revision petitioners, the appellate court has declined to grant relief in their stay petition, which is not tenable in law i.e., without recording prima facie case, balance of convenlence and irreparable loss. It is further pleaded that the clairn petitioners have filed E.A.Nos.69 and 70 qf 2Ol5 alter tr.P.No.221 of 2Ol4 (New E.P.No.379 of 20221 was Iiled by the decree holder, as the earlier E.P.No.9O of 2OO7 was dismissed for default. Further, tr.A.Nos.133 and 134 of 2OO7 were dismissed against which first appea,l vide A.S.No.103 of 2009 and the second t: 8 appeal vide S.A.No.376 of 2Ol4 are preferred an,J therefore, orders passed in the current tr.A. Nos.69 ald 70 of 2015 which are preferred seeking recall of u,.arrant and stay of frr ther proceedings which are not sustainable in law. In vien' ;f the foregoing reasoning, the revision petitioners pray that the mpugned ord ers be set aside and direct the learned Tria] Court t: take up the suit in O.S.No.405 of 2006 along r.vith E.p.No.379 of t) )22.

72. During arguments, the learned colrrr ;el for revision petitroners rehed upon judgment of the High Co _ rt of Punj ab and Haryana in Inder Singh vs Piara Singht, '*,her.r: n, it is held that in al execution petition for deiivery of possessi rn of immovable property, objections b1, any person in possess on, who is not bound by decree, the Executing Court canno, dispossess him without considering his application in view of Or ler XXI Rule 35 of CPC.

13. On the basis of the aforementioned ci1.e r Lon, the learned counsel lor revision petitioners argued that the rr. ision petitioners i.e. wife and children of the judgment debtor are iving in the suit schedule property continuously prior to the filin 1 of the suit for specific performance and that they do not have rny relationship 1 AIR 1993 P&H 83 ) 9 with the judgment debtor and therefore, their claim over the suit schedule property has to be considered. It is submitted that any judgment passed against the judgment debtor is not binding on them until their rights are independently decided in the Second Appeal pending before the High Court, in Second Appeal No.376 of 20 1 4. According to the revision petitioners, until their rights are decided, the Execution Court does not have any power to proceed in the E.P

14. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5 relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sulthan Said Ibrahim v. Prakasan2, wherein, it is held that when both the Trial Court and First Appellate Court arrived at the conclusion that exclusive possession of the suit schedule property could be vvith the original Cefendant when the suit was decreed, the relief of transfer of possession was implicit in the decree for specific performance while directing the original defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the original plaintiff. Further, where the exclusive possession of the suit property is with the contracting parly, a decree for specific performance of contract of sale ) MANUlscloTTzlzo25 \ \ t :: t: l :: l0:: simpliciter, rvithout specifically providing or delivery of possession, ma1, give complete relief to the decre: holder. I 5. In the case ol Rohit Kochar v. Vip I . Infrastructure Developers Ltd.rl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court o1 ndia held that in a suit for specilic performance of contract for ale of land it is open for the plaintiff to join in the same suit t,r'r prayers, one for execution of deed of tralsfer and another for r,: :overy of land in question. Further, it is held that a decree for sp,-. :ific performance of a contract includes everything incidental tc be done by one party or another to complete the sale transact i rn including the rights and obligations of the parties in such matr.t r being governed by Section 55 ofTransler of Property Act, 1882. 1 6 . It is submitted by the learned coun se for respondents that in a suit for specific performance though thi relief of delivery of possession is not pleaded, it is incumbent u1> rn the Courts to not only get the registered sale deed execute( through Court process, but there is also an obligation to deliver )ossession of the property as delivery of possession is incide :rtal to a sale transaction. It is emphasized that though the s uit \vas decreed wray back in the year 2003. The decree hold< I s are unable to 3 2024 Lawsuit(Sc) 1114 :: I l:: enjoy the fmits of the decree ti1l date. In fact, it is the revision petitioners who are abusing Court process, denying the fruits of decree to the lega1 heirs ol the decree holder. It is submitted that the decree holder died and his lega1 heirs continue to run from pillar to post for deli".ery of possession of the suit schedule property even after 22 years. Learned counsel for lega1 heirs of the decree holder prayed that the litigation which is going on from the year 200 1 onu,ards till date be taken into consideration while passing orders

17. The sequence of events of the present case show that a suit for specific performance was filed by respondent No.2 / plaintiff way back in the year 200 1 and the sarne was decreed in the year 2003. Ever since the suit was decreed, respondent No.2 and his lega1 heirs have been in the process of getting the decree executed. In that process, the E.P.No.24 of 2005 was fiied and a registered sale deed was executed. Thereafter, E.P.No.9O of 2OO7 was filed with a prayer for delivery of possession of the suit house. From that stage onwards till date, the proceedings in the E.P. are stagnated without any outcome. During pendency of the E.P., the wife and children of the judgment debtor/revision petitioners have hled suit in O.S.No.405 \ \ iI l ,i ,i i I ,i tilzii of 2006 on the file of the I Additional Senior Ci'il Judge, with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree: r O.S.No.B3O of 2OO 1 and said suit is disposed off

18. The claim petrtioners filed tr.A.Nos. 133 ar d 134 of 2007 in E.P.No.9O of 2OO7 for recall of warrant and f,> stav of further proceedings, the said E.As. have been dismiss,: I on 01.O4.20O7 i.e., the prayer of the revision petitioners her :in for recall of warrant of delivery of possession ald stay of fr-.,r,her proceedings in tr.P.No.9O of 2OO7 was dismissed for tlr: first time on Ol.O4.2OO7. Thereafter, al appeal vide A.S.No. 03 of 2OO9 was preferred. The said appeal was dismissed lerr ling to filing of Second Appeal No.376 of 2074, which is still p: rding. When the E.P.No.90 of 2OO7 was dismissed for default, in tl e lzear 2O12, the legal heirs of respondent No.2/plaintiff have il r d tr.P.No.221 of 2O14 (New E.P.No.379 of 20221, in which also tlere was a claim petition filed by the petitioners herein along vith E.A. Nos.69 and 70 of 2015 to recall warrant of delivery of p rssession and to stay further proceedings in E.P.No.22 1 of 2074 (l,l rw tr.P.No.379 of 2022) . The said E.As. were allo'n ed learl; r g to filing of C.R.P.No.3914 of 2015 and the said C.R.P vas allowed on

22.O7.2015 setting aside the order passed bl ,he E.P.Court in ( .+--iga:tE :: l3:: E.A.Nos.69 and 70 of 2015 i.e., for the second time, the revision petitioners u,ere denied the relief of stay of further proceedings in order to facilitate delivery of possession and said order was passed by this Court itself. Once the E.As. were -dismissed, a review petition was filed and said revierv petition was a,lso dismissed on 07.06.2024.

19. In the circumstances, the revision/review petitioners have filed the third I.A.No.615 of 2024 in A.S.No.3 of 2024 seeking stay of all further proceedings in E.P.379 of 2022 liled seeking delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. Agarn, the revision petitioners have fiied E.A.No.39 of 2022 to recall the warrant for delivery of possession in E.P.No.379 of 2022.

20. This sequence of events shows repeated attempts on the part of the review petitioners to sta1l the execution of the E.p. The conduct of the revision petitioners shows nothing but abuse of Court process. In fact, the revision petitioners have sought exercise of their rights by hling O.S.No.405 of 2006 as well as by filing E.A.No.69 of 2O15 under Order XXI Rules 98,99 and 101 of CPC i.e., an opportunity was given to the revision petitioners to prove their rights before the competent Civil Court and also before \ \ l: :: l4:: the Execution Court. It is a point to be note<l hat the repeated findings of the Courts are against the revisl(l . petitioners. The revision petitioners are doggedly obstructing trr exccution of the tr.P. tt is a point to be noted that all the proct:,-'lings initiated by the revision petitioners ended in orders against rhem, except the Second Appeal No.376 of 2O14, which is stil1 pe Lding. Be that as it ma1', dismissal of claim petition filed under () 'der XXI Rule 97 to 101 of CPC which is in the nature of a stLit clearly indicates that the petitioners failed to establish their right;

21. Lastlv, there is no stay in the said ll :cor-rd Appeal to prevent execution of the delivery of possessior in favour of the legal heirs of the decree holder. When there is re :eated failure on the part of revision petitioners to prove their rigt. s and there is no stay in the Second Appeal, there can be no quc;tion of granting any stay on ful'ther proceedings in the E.P. t I stal1 delivery of possession. It is a point to be noted that the lon'ble Supreme Court in case between Periyammal (deadf tt rough LRs and others v. V. Rajamani and another, etc.a, held hat an effort has to be made for conciuding the proceedings L: L any execution petition u,ithin six months. Instead, herein is :] situation where /a Civil Appeal Nos.3640 3642 of ZOZ5 :: l5:: the E.P. proceedings which have begun in the year 2005 have not concluded even in the year 2025.

22. In view of the foregoing discussion, in view of the fact that the revision petitioners have failed in establishing their rights by filing O.S.No.405 of 2OO6 and E.A.No.69 of 2O15 under Order XXI Rules 98 to 1OI of CPC though Second Appeal is pending, this Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated

03.O7.2024 passed b,"'- the learned III Additional District Judge in LA.No.615 of 2024 in A.S.No.3 of 2024 and order dated

13.08.2024 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medchai- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally in E.P.No.379 of 2022 in O.S.No.830 of 2001.

23.' In the result, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed' Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. No SD/.M.OSMAN ALI BAIG ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, & t'ThelllAdditionalDistrictandSessions-Judge-cum-llAdditional r,rr"iroroliiin--sesslons Judge-Cum-Princip-al Family Court' Medchal-Malkajgiri, at Kukatpally

2. The Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri, Kukatpally' 3. One CC to SRl. VENTRAPRAGADA ARAVIND Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRl. V BALRAM Advocate IOPUCI 5. Two CD CoPies NVB/PSI. HIGH COURT DATED:2311212025 4 ,.. f-' iA \tS I ! i 2 i tEB 2026 COMMON ORDER \\-'.1\\ CRP.Nos.2579, 2595 and 3692 ot 2024 :l ,. ',/ ,/ iesr,'rcr9 DISMISSING THE ALL CIVIL REVISION I'ETITIONS e^1 \4" 2 h