The High Court · 2025

2. Allamneni Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Ragha Both R/o. SBH ATM Main Road, Thor District aiah, Aged 47 years, Occ Business, ur Village and Mandal, ttilahabubabad ...PETITIONERS/JDRs AND Kotagiri Sudarshan, S/o. Rama Lachaiah, Thorrur Village and Mandal, Mahabubaba 9e.60 years, Occ Business, R/o. Diskict ...RESPONDENT/DHR lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC prayi g that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, t e High Court may be pleased to stay No. 10 of 2022in O. S. No. 145 of the order dated 01 .10.2024 passed in E. P 2014 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, M habubabad District pending disposal of the above case and pass such other and f rther orders in the interest of justice Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI MAMIDI V NU MADHAV Counsel for the Respondent VIJAY ASHRI The Court made the following: ORDER 1 .tp_4,6l 2024 NBK, ] THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.406l of2O24 ORDER: The defendants in o.S.No.l4 5 of 2014 on the file of Senior civil Judge, Mahabubabad District (the trial Court, for short), is the revision petitioner herein. The plaintilf filed the Suit O.S.No'145 ol 2014 for Specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 10.09.2008 in respect of land to an extent ofAc.o-12 l/z guntas of Survey No.136/4of Velikatte Viltage, Thonur Mandal, Warangal District. ThetrialCourtdecreedtheSuitbyJudgmentandDecreedated 27 .01.2022, after considering the oral evidence ol PWs' 1 to 3 and documentary evidence Exhibits Al to A7 adduced on behalf of the plaintiff; and the oral evidence of DWs. I to 3 and documentary cvidence Exhibits B 1 andB.2 adduced on behalfofthe defendants. Challenging the same, the defendants filed an appealA'S'No '5 of 2022 before the Principal District Judge, Mahabubnagar (for short, the District Court); however, no interim orders were granted in their favour' seeking execution of the decree dated27.0l.2022, the plaintifffiled an execution petition i.e., E.PNo. l0 of 2O22 before the trial Court' The defendants contested the execution petition stating that he has not agreed to sell the suit property to the ptaintiff and that the plaintiff entered into an agreement, on his own volition, for effecting compromise with one Komalla Srinivas Rao, and that the executing court cannot go beyond the Decree. The trial Court, considering the respective submissions, allowed the execution petition by order dated 01.10.2024, with a direction to the defendants to register the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiffand 2 ctp-4061_2024 N8K, J to deliver vacant possession of the pro erty to the plaintiff within 15 days from the date ofthe order. Challenging the Order dated 01.1 .2024 passed by the trial Court in E.P.No.l0 of 2022, the defendants filed is civil revision petition.

2. Heard Mr. M. Venu Madhav, petitioners/defendants; and Mr. Vijay leamed counsel for the Ashrit, learned counsel revtslon for the respondent/plaintiff. Perused the record.

3. At the outset, the alleged litigati Komalla Srinivas Rao has been the subj n between the defendants and one ct matter of submissions in the Suit O.S.No. 145 of 2014 before the trial Cou , and the trial Court has considered respective submissions while renderin its Judgment and Decree dated

27.01.2022. Further, the defendants hav filed an appeal before the District Court, and admittedly there are no stay rders granted by the District Court, staying the operation of the Decree da ed 27.01.2022. That being so, the execution petition filed by the plaintiff, nd the trial Court implementing the terms of the Decree cannot be faulted.

4. At this juncture, it is relevant to 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code fer to the provision under Section which reads as follows: "115. Revision - (1) The High Court may call for the record any Court subordinate to such High Court a if such subordinate Court appears- any case which has been decided by d in which no appeal lies thereto, and (a) to have exercised a iurisdiction not (b) to have failed to exercise a iurisdict (c) to have acted in the exercise of material irregularity, the High Court m it thinks fit: sted in it by law, or o n so vested, or jurisdiction illega-lly or with make such order in the case as v lProvided that the High Court or reverse any order made, or any orde hall not, under this section, vary deciding an issue, in the course . ,t!E frF?EElEiEz ''..-'::'l' :*'f-./ .:!:r ,.':.': ./ -/ 3 -4061_2024 N8K,I of a suit or other proceeding, except where the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have fhally disposed of the suit or other proceedings.l [Substituted by the Code of Ciail Procedure (Artendmcnt) Act, 1999, Sectiofl 12, for fomter prooiso (zo.e.f. 1.7 2002).1 (2) The High Cou rt shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to arry Court subordinate thereto. (3) A revision shall not operate as a stay of suit or other proceeding before the Court except where such suit or other proceeding is stayed by the High Court. fitserfcd by tht Code of Ciuil Proctdure (Aruetdmefi) Act, 7976 Section 4j (u..c.f. '1 .2.7977 ).l Explanation:- [n Lhis section, the expression, "anv casc which has been decided" includes any order made, or any ordcr deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding.l [Inserted by the Code of Chil Procedurc ( Amendment) Act,7976, Section 43 (w.e.f. 1.2.1977).1

5. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, it may be noted that the trial Court had merely directed the defendants to perform the registration of sale deed and hand over the vacant possession of the suit schedule property, having considered that there are no orders staying the Decree dated 27 .01 .2022; and the said direction in no way goes beyond or surpasses the terms of the Decree. Further, it is alrvays open for the def-endants to take whatever legal pleas are available to them in the appeal before the District Court. This Court does not find any merir in the arguments canvassed by the revision petitioners/defendants challenging the order dated

01.10.2024 in the E.P.No.l0 of 2022. In that view of the matter. this civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. , t / To, //TRUECOPY// i, sD/_ MoHD.rsMArL REGISTRAR ODF:urY t\ \ ,rl sEcloN oFFrcER V

1. SEN|OR Ctyt.{y.qcE, MAHABUBABAD DrsrRtcr 2. one CC to €Rt. MAt\4tDi vl'rui-l'"r\r;"frAV Advocate [opucl 3. one cc to SRtvtJAyAsilCtiejlo,.",u topuil 4' Two cD Copies rvvveot' t\Jruul "/ I I S I,I r€ ,j i-) t 13 tl'lE 20fi ( * Dt .SP trTCI. '.o I HIGH COURT DATED:2510212025 ORDER CRP.No.4061 of 2024 / 4,4- ,/z/i 9 /q DISMISSING THE C.R.P. WITHOUT COSTS