The High Court · 2025

...PETITIONER/DECREE HOLDER/PLAINTIFF AND V. Vijaya Maruthi, S/o. Shankaraiah, Age. 67 Years, Occ. Retired Employee and Advocate, R/ o. H. No. 3-7492, Vavilalapally, Karimnagar City and District. ...RESPONDENT'JUDGMENT DEBTOR/DEFENDANT. Counsel for the Petitioner SRI. KVENUMADHAV Counsel for the Respondent NIL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N' TUI(ARAM'II CTVIL PITITIO N No.33O8 of ORDER: This civil Revision Petition has been liled assailing the order dated 12.06.2025, passed in the unnumbered execution petition filed in O.S. No. 15 of 2018 on the file of the Frincipal District Judge, Karimnagar. t have heard Mr. B. Sai Krishna, learned counsel 2. representing Mr. K. Venumadhav, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, and have carefully perused the material available on record.

3.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the petitioner is the decree holder in o.s. No. 15 of 2018, which was instituted for recovery of money. The petitioner had also instituted another suit for recovery of a different sum against the same respondent/judgment debtor, registered as o.s. No. 51 of 2018, wherein a decree was duly passed. [n execution of that decree, the schedule propertJr mentioned in the present unnumbered execution petition was attached' Subsequently, the petitioner liled the present execution \ ) 2 petition in respect of the decree in O.S. No. 15 of 201g, seeking attachment of the same property.

3.2. However, the executing court below refused to number the execution petition on the ground that the same property had already been attached in another proceeding filed for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 15 of 2olg and, therefore, the petition was not maintainable. Aggrieved by such refusal, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present Civil Rerrision petition, seeking appropriate relief.

4. In spite of due service of notice, the respondent/judgment debtor has chosen to remain absent and has not entered appearance.

5. I have perused the record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner. 6' The principar grievance of the petitioner is that the court below erroneously declined to take the execution petition on file, solely on the ground that the sarne property was already under attachment in another execution proceeding arising out of the same decree. J-E 3

7. A perusal of the record clarifies that the decree obtained in O.S. No. 15 of 2018 and the decree in O.S. No. 51 of 2018 are independent and distinct. The decree holder has a legitimate right to execute each decree separately against the judgment debtor,'even if the property sought to be attached is common to both decrees.

8. The refusal of the executing court to entertain the execution petition on the premise that the same propert5r was already attached in the sarne execution proceeding is factually unsustainable.

9. It is well settled that under Order XXI Rules 3O, 41, and 53 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, a'decree holder is entitled to proceed against the propert5r of tJle judgment debtor in execution of any valid and subsisting decree, subject to compliance with procedural safeguards. The pendency of another execution case against the same property does not, per S€, bar the filing or maintainability of a subsequent execution petition based on a separate decree. What the law mandates is coordination among executing courts to prevent conflicting orders or over-attachment, not the denial of a right to execute an independent decree. \ \ 4

10. In Satgautati u. Rajinder Singh qnd Anoth.er, (2013) 9 SCC 49L, the Honble Supreme Court held that a decree lwlder cannot be depriued of the fruits of the decree and the escea,ting court must eltsure enforcement of the decree in accordance with law.

11. In the present case, the executing court appears to have misunderstood the factual and legal position. The bar applies only where there is a duplicate or repetitive execution proceeding for the same decree, not where there are distinct decrees against the same judgment debtor involving the same property. The proper course, in such circumstances, would have been to take the execution petition on file, issue notice, and hear the parties before passing any order on maintainability.

12. By refusing to entertain the execution petition at the threshold, the executing court has effectively curtailed the petitioner's statutory right under Section 36 read with Order XXI CPC to seek execution of a valid decree. Such refusal, without affording an opportunity to the. decree holder to substantiate maintainability, is improper and contrar5r to the \-' settled principles of natural justice. t* { t 5

13. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 12'06'2O25 is liable to be set aside. The court below is directed to receive the unnumbred execution petition frled by the revision petitioner' take it on file, and proceed in accordance with law after alfording due opportunity to the petitioner to present his case' The executing court shall also bear in mind the settled legal position that there is no statutory bar to execution against the same property for distinct decrees' subject to procedural propriety and coordination to avoid duplication of process' t i

14. With the above observations and directions' this Civil Revision Petition is allowed' There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any' shall stand closed. sD/. S,MALLIKAJUNA RA SISTANT REG //TRUE COPY" SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge at Karimnagar' 2. One CC to SRl. K VENUMADHAV Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD CoPies TUPSL lHE S)"4 ? 1 JAN 202[ ''.1a. I o C) ( * HIGH COURT DATED:1111112025 ORDER CRP.No.3308 ot 2025 ALLOWING THE C.R.P.