The High Court · 2025

2. Sri_Kotla Srinivas, S/o. K. Ramulu Aged.46 years, Occ. Employee, H.No. 6-3_ 582/4, Gandhi Tata Nagar, Near Ziil5 parishad Office, HydeiabLd.' ...RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTORS/DEFENDANTS 3. Canara Bank, Abids Branch, Rep by its Manager, Abids, Hyderabad_ 50000.1 . (Respondent No. '1 asainsrthemin,ri-!",":"x"""H3:'+r"r;r"rr,?:.l?Ji"':f ,Il"":::?:l order dated 24-09-2025 passed by the Learned XUt Addt. S;ni;-aivil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad) RESPONDENT/GARNISHEE lA NO: 'l OF 2025 Petition under Section 1s1 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to pass an order dispensing with the filing of the certified copy of the order dated 24-09-2025, passed by the learned xvil Addr senior civir Jr, ige, city civir court. at Hyderabad in E.p Sr. No. 1736 0f 2025 in o.S No. 222 0f 2016 and thereby by directing the court berow to number the execution petitioner in E.p. Sr. No. 1736 of 2025 in o S. No 222 of 2016on the fire of XVil Addr S.r ior civir Judge, city Civil Court, at Hyderabad Counsel for the Petitioner: Ms. Himangini Sanghi Counsel for the Respondents: The Court made the following: ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3833 of 2025 DATE OF ORDER: 12.72.2025 Between : Ch. Madhusudhan, S/o. Late Ramaiah, aged abor_rt B0 years, R/o. 12-1 -198 / 6, Asidnagar, Near Datheriya Colony, Hyderabad - 500028. AND Petitioner G. Hanumanth Rao, S/o. G.V. Rasaiah, Aged about 62 years, Occ: Retired Employee, R/o. 12- 1-331 /29, Datheriya Colony, Hyderabad - 500028 and others. ... Respondents ORDER: Heard Ms. Himangini Sanghi, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner invoking the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India. The challenge is to the docket order dated, ,/

24.O9.2025, tn I.A.(SR) No.1736 of 2025 in O.S t o.222 of 20t6, passed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, ( i y Civil Court at Hyderabad.

3. It is a case where the Execution petition pr:ferred by the petitioner has been returned by the Execution Court on the ground that petitioner has failecl to convince the Court t; to how two reliefs can be souqht in one Execution petition seeki" I execution of judgment and decree. Moreove4 the petitioner has nc: been able to prove its case so far as whether the amount equivaler t to decreetal amount was available in the bank of the judgment del tor, so far as one of the optional relief sought for. i I I I I

4. has filed a suit for recovery It is a case where the petitioner of money suit, which stood decreed on / judgment debtor preferred

22.77.2O19. Tlrr rgspsnjsnl an appeal against the sr d judgment vide A.S.No.7 of 2020 before the Chief Judge, City C r'il Court at Hyderabad, and the same also stood dismissed on 28.O2.2O23 the judgment and decree of trial Cou rt. Execution petition was filed before the trial Court and S I rsequenUy, con firm ing when the upon notice being issued, the same came back unserved and the said E.P was not pressed further.

5. It appears that the subsequent E.p. has been rejected on technicalities of two reliefs having been sought for.

6. It would be relevant at this juncture to take note of a judgment rendered by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra pradesh in the case of A.Ramesh vs, Chintala prabha and anotherl, wherein in paragraph Nos.12 and 13, it has been held as under: "72. It is no doubt true that in E.p.12 0f 1gg7 in o.s.No. 431 of 1991 on the file of principal District Munsiff, Karjmnagar, two reliefs have been sought for. It is pertinent to note that the relief granted is only issuance of delivery warrants, that too on the ground that the Appeal itself was dismissed. LJnder Order 21 Rule 11(2) (l), it is pertinent to note that apart from the relief of delivery of any property specifically decreed, the relief by the attachment or by the attachment and sale or sale without attachment of any property and also by the arrest and detention in prison of any person have been specified. Here itself, it is made clear that the Code of Civil procedure is the parent legislation and the A.p. Civil Rules of practice, 1990, at any stretch of imagination cannot over-ride the aforesaid rules. ' zoot 101 aLo 2ao - Page 4 ot 6 i3. Be that as it may, the main Execution Pet tion, in my opinion can contain more than one relief for th'? reason that E. P. could be filed for execution of a decree. A d, cree will be drafted on the strength of a judgment, the jU lgment and decree may grant several reliefs to a party and v hile putting the reliefs granted by virtue of a decree into e\(:ution, I do not think that any such restriction can be placed in filing the execution petition. In the light of the above pr,'t,tsions read with Orrler 21 Rule 11(2)(l) of CPC, I am of the tpinion that in executrcn petition reliefs more than one also c) 1 be prayed for since execution petition will be filed only for he purpose of execution of the decree and if the decree gr, nts several reliefs, in the execution petition, the decree hold ,r need not be driven to file separate E. Ps for each relief rnd for the purpose of convenience decree holder is at liberly to execute the whctle decree claiming all the reliefs in ont execution petition or otherwise, at least at his own hoice and convenience and hence such restriction as cont('t ded by Sri Ramesh Sagar cannot be imposed, even in the 'ght of the provisiotis referred to supra. " From a plain reading of the averments made rr the said order of the High Court, it clearly reflects that subsequ,t rt filing of the E.P is not barred and it is also reflected that in on: E.P. there can be more than one reliefs sought for.

7. In the instant case also, a plain reading of I he two reliefs sought for, would clearly give an indication that of he two reliefs one of them was an alternative relief. If one of them is answered, the need for second relief would not be arising at all 8,. Moreove4 what is also paramount to be looked into is the fact that incidentally the petitioner has the judgment decree in his favour, decided on 27.17.2019, and which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court also on 22.O8.2023 in his favour. The petitioner / decree holder has a right to get the decree executed and the attempt earlrer made getting spoilt only because of the difficulty in tracking the judgment debtor by itself should not be a hurdle for the decree holder to resort to other means in getting the decree executed. The petitioner having filed a fresh E.P. trying to ensure that the decree is executed in its letter and spirit should not be choked to death without even registering the E.P. on the ground of maintainability as there are more than one reliefs sought fo r. \ ( Further, reading of the two reliefs sought for would leave this Court to the only plausible inference of both leading to the same conclusion.

9. In view of the same, returning of the E.P. by Executing Court i.e. XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge. City Civil Court at I \ Hyderabad, does not seem to be proper; legal and j rstified, and the same is accordingly set aside / quashed. The E:l ,cuting Court is directed to register the E.P. and thereafter proceec and decide the same strictly in accordance with law on its own mer ts. 1O. The instant Civil Revision petition, witl the aforesaid observations and directions is accordingly disposed rf.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pendir E if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as t(r :osts. SD/. A.PRATHIMA I]:PUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII -'* SECTION OFF]CER To, I

1. The XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad 2. One CC to Ms. Himangini Sanghi, Advocate tOpUCl 3. Two CD Copies VH I HIGH COURT PSK, J DATED: 1211212025 ORDER CRP.No.3833 of 2025 1 LL,..l t6 \sy ,\ \v <o I.\ -;'/ .J \l- -{, ) Hc\H * DISPOSING OF CRP I I a Cr i,l (