kVenfataramana v. 1. Sriram Capital finance and chits

M.Raohuramarao. ine O]visionat Manager, A.P. Forest Development' Corporation Limited, Laxmidevioallv. Kothaqudem. Banoth Ctian<iulal, S/o. Ramulu, Business, R/o. H.No. 5-85' Raieswarinilavam. Laxmidevipallv, Kothagudem. Sniif rutaUaf'sni,, S/o. M.A. Gafcior, Planlation Manager, APFDCL'.. kditrisudem, Srinagar, 4th line, Kothagudem Mandal, Khammam dist. (4th re-spondent noLnecessary to this Case) ...RES'ONDENTS C.R.P.M.P. NO: '177 OF 2005 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 stay of all further proceedings in Pursuance of the orders passed in EP No. 582 ol 2OO4 dated 6-12-2004 in os No. 630 of 2003 on the file of Prl. Junior civil Judge, Kothagudem. Counsel for the Pet3tioner: SRl. R KAMESWAR RAO(No more) Notice sent to the petittoner dt:12.12.2O19 and not not appeared in person or through Advocate. Counsel forthe Respondents: NONE APPEARED The Court made the following: ORDER THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE IC LAKSHMAN THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTTCE VAKITI RAMAKRTSHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No-154 of 2005 ORDER: (per the Hon'ble Sri Justice KLAKSHMAN) On 14.03.2019, this Court passed the following order:- "Regist-y is directed to inform the petitioner that aespite tfre seryice of notice informing him that his former Advocate, I\rr. R. Kameswara Rao, has exprred, despite granting him four weeks time to engagc the services of a new counsel or to appear in person, even today, the petitioner has neither appeared personally nor through a counsel. 'Ihereiore, this Court grants the petitioner another period of four weeks to appear either in p:f:'n.:' through a counsel on the next date, failing which this petition shall be dismissed for non- prosecution' List this case on 15.04.2019." Inspite of the specific direction issued by this Court on

14.03.2019, the petitioner herein failed to engage a counsel'

2. We have perused the record. S.ThepetitionerhasfiledthepresentrevisionunderSectionl15 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 06'12'2004 passed in E.P.No.582 of 2004 in O.S.No. 630 ol 2003 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

4. Respondent No.l had filed a suit in O.S. No. 630 of 2003 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 fbr recovery of 2 money. The suit was decreed hotding that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are jointly and severaily liable to pay the decree amount along with interest. pursuant to the said decree, respondent No.l filed an execution petition vide E.p.No. 5g2 of 2004 in o.s. No. 630 of 2003 seeking execution of the judgment and decree. The learned Principal Junior civil Judge, Kothagudem, issued an attachment order dated 06.12.2004. In the said proceedings, the petitioner is the guarantor, respondent No.3 is the loanee, and respondent No.4 is another guarantor. 5. The petitioner filed the present revision contending that the learned executing court, i.e., the principal Junior civil Judge, Kothagudem, failed to consider Rule 35 of the A.p. Agency Rules, 1924, and that it has no jurisdiction to execute the decree and judgment passed in o.S. No. 630 of 2003. [t is furrher contended that the executing court failed to consider the relevant Agency Rules and the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, holding that the Agency Rules framed under Section 6 of the scheduled Districts Act, 1874 (sic: 1894) are applicable. Therefore, the principal Junior civil Judge, Kothagudem, had no jurisdiction to execute the said decree and judgment by enterraining E.p. No. 5g2 of 2oo4 filed by respondent No.l/decree holder. / { 3

6. There is no dispute with regard to the legal position that in Scheduled Areas, civil courts have no jurisdiction to execute decrees passed by civil courts, and that it is ttre Special Agent/Agency court which is competent to dispose of execution petitions. This principre has also been laid down by the Hon'bre Apex court in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and others v. Medf Narayana and othersr, and in the common order dated fi.r2.zorg in c.R.p. No. 3g00 of 200r and batch.

7. It is apt to note that in the praint fired by respondent No.l in o-s. No. 630 of 2003, it is specifically naentioned that defendant No' l, the loanee, is a tribal and a resident of Laxmidevipaily, which is an agency area. Therefore, there is no dispute that defendant No.l is a tribal and a resident of Laxmidevipany, which arso fa[s within the agency area. \ 8' As discussed supra, despite granting sufficient opportunity, the petitioner herein failed to engage a new counsel. There is no interim order in this case. There is arso no information regarding the realisation of the amount covered under the decree in o,S. No. 630 of 2003, either from the petitioner or from respondent No.r. Further, there are no instructions to the effect that defendant No. r has paid the f ( '1zor;4 scc 362 4 entire decretal amount or that reqpondent No.l, the decree holder, has realised the said amount.

9. This revision is of the year zoos. At the cost of repetition, os discussed supra, deqpite being granted sufficient opportunity, the petitioner failed to engage a new advocate and also failed to appear before this Court 10. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned attiachment order dated 06.12.2a04 passed in E.P. No. 582 of 2004 in o.S. No. 630 of 2003 by the learned Principal Junior civil Judge, Kothagudem. Therefore, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. I l- Accordingly, the civil Revision petition is dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs; As a sequel, misceflaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. To, //TRUE COPY// SD/. U.SUDHA ASSISTANTREGISTRARa SECTION OFFICER I' IV"rpr:"Hl# Et:iIJr'.HflA3i, L',,n:3ff#fl:,. 3. Two CD Copies in APFDCL, Kothagudem w' I j HIGH COURT DATED i16110t2025 ORDER CRP.No.154 of 2005 1 l li-'. {:: ;... '{ ai' O:I Hil M : t.", {. DISMISSING THE C.R.P WITHOUT COSTS.