The High Court · 2025

in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to dispense with certified copy of the order/decree dt. 14.1 1.2025 passed in E.P No. 37 of 2025 in O.S No. 175 oI 2017, by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, in the above C.R.P. lA NO: 2 OF 2025 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 to stay all further proceedings in furtherance to the EP No. 37 of 2025 in O.S No. 175 of 2017, including attachment of the schedule mentioned properties, on the file of the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy., pending disposal of the CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri V. Gopala Rao Amancharla Counsel for the Respondents: Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi The Court made the following: ORDER -/ HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4149 ot 2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Gopala Rao Amancharla V, learned counsel appearing.on behalf of the petitioner on record, and Sri Anup Kuravadi, learned counsel representing Sri Anup Koushik Kuravadi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on record.

2. Aggrieved by the orders dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Sangar'6ddy, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner.

3. PERUSED THE RECORD i A) The relevant Dortion of the impuqned order dated 14.11.2O25 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2O25 in 2 SN, J cRP 4149 202i O.S.No,175 of 2OL7 Dassed b the Pri ctn nal District ludqe, Sanqareddv is extracted hereunder: "10. No doubt, review petition is filed. But by mere filing the review petition itself is not the ground for not proceeding with this E.P which is filed on obtaining the judgment and decree on contest and attained finality. Mere filing of the review application is not a bar for execution court to proceed with the matter as held in V, Vengamalai Gounder (deceased) by L.Rs and others v. K. Perumal Gounder LNIND 2077 MAD 4781. The decree holders in whose favour the decree was passed should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the judgment and decree. All the issues raised by the judgment debtor herein are not considerable in this E.P proceedings. e

11. As the Judgment and decree is passed in favour of the decree holders and against the judgment debtor, the judgment debtor didn't pay any amount subsequent to the passing of the decree which has obtained flnality having not preferred any appeal and as no denial with regard to the schedule property as belongs to him, this court is of the view that the decree holder is entitled for execution of the E.P by attaching the schedule property on payment of process. -/ / .,) SN, J cRP 4149 2025

12. ln the result, the E.P is allowed and ordered for attachment of the E.P schedule immovable property on payment of process. No order as to costs. Call on 26.11.2025. For process by 17.LL.2025." B) The petitioner filed the review petition i.e., I.A.No.266O of 2O24 in O.S. No.175 of 2O17 before the trial Court challenqinq the decree dated 01.O8.2024 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2OL7 seekino Draver as under: "to review the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2024 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 by setting aside the judgment and decree and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs." t DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

4. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the'trial Court failed to observe that the review petition I.A.No.2660 of 2024 in O.S. No.175 of 2017 had been filed by the petitioner herein challenging the d".."" dated 01.08.2024 It I SN, J cRP 4t49 2025 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2017 on legal grounds such as jurisdiction, limitation, non-joinder of parties, absence of witnesses, and the validity of the promissory notes when no consideration had been passed on and the same are sufficient grounds for adjudication in review. However, though there were valid grounds for adjudlcation of the review, the trial Court, without examining the same on merits, proceeded finally and passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy.

5. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in the interest of justice, it is just and necessary to set aside the'impugned order dated 74.11.2025 passed in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the responderrts, however, contends that mere filing of a review application by the petitloner cannot be a ground for the trial a/ / ) SN, J cRP 41,r9 2025 Court not to proceed and pass orders in E.P. No, 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017, in view of the fact that though the review had been filed in the year 2024 no stay had been granted by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions ludge at Sangareddy.

7. This Court opines that the said plea put forth by the respondents is no doubt true but this Court takes note of the fact as borne on record that the application I.A.No.2660 of 2024 filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated t4.17.2025 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2OU had been pending consideration before the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, as on 14.11.2025 and even as on date, and since the said applicati6n had not been adjudicated on its merits, execution of the E.P. at this stage would render the very filing of the review petition by the petitioner herein as infructuous. Thereforg, this Court opines that in the interest of Justice tne t.n.ruo.2660 of 2024 filed by the petitioner in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 needs to be adjudicated finally on merits in accordance to law. () SN. J cRP 4149 2025 L Takinq into consideration the submi sions made bv the lei - aDpearino on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel aDDear[no on behalf of the respondents-. the Civil Revision Petition is disoosed of, directinq th-e_l-f4eipA] District ludqe, Sanqareddv , to disoose of the review aDplication, I.A. No. 2660 of 2024 in accordance to law on merits and pass a orooriate orders, within a eriod of th ree o3 wee s ro a coDv of th is order. It is soecificallv observed that both parties shall cooperate and ensure the final disposal otf the review aDplication, I.A. No. 256O of 2O24 on rnerits, within the said period of three (03 ) weeks fronr the date of receiot of a coov of this order. There shall be stay of all further proceedinqs pursuant to the order dated 14.LL.2025 passed in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.!i. No. 175 of 2O17 on the file of-Principal District -ludqe, Sanqareddv, for a period of three (O3) weeks from ris order, till the above exercise as indicated as above within the time psr_tSd as stipulated as a !a!e_d_-aLfS! / \ { To, 7 SN, J cRP 4t49 202i concluded. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. t I //TRUE COPY// /' SD/- AHMEDABDULLA KHAN ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 6 / SECTION OFF!CER '1 . The Principal District Judge, Sanga Reddy. 2. One CC to Sri V. Gopala Rao Amancharla, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri Anup Koushik Karavadi, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies VFUPSL % i\E -q 2 \) '. a^ ,,fu_ ?ffi (* c) )-\ -f<-l ,nr{flb!' HIGH COURT DATED: 1911112025 ORDER CRP.No.4149 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE CRP ,{ I