The High Court · 2025

Petition under Section Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 R/w Section '151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the respondent from changing the physical feature of the subject land in any mariner and alienation in favour of any 3rd party in respect of the schedule property i.e., The Khammam Cold Storage complex building sated in Venkatagiri Road, Near Grain Market, Khammam town in Plot No.45,46,47, pending disposal of the main CRP in the interest of justice. SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY The Khammam Cold Storage complex building situated in Venkatagiri Road, Near Grain Market, Khammam town in Plot No.45,46,47, bounded by East : Municipal Road West . Vacant Site North : Sangachaitanya Cold Storage South : Vacant Site Counsel for the Petitioners in all CRPs : Sri M M M Srinivasa Rao Counsel for the Respondent in all CRPs : Sri Siva S Lanka The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER I HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CTVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6996 and 7|93 of 2Or7 & t9t7 and 3439 of2O1a COMMON ORDER: (per lTon'ble S.rrrt. Justtce Tintmakt Dt.ur ErLda) Civil Revision petition Nos.6996, ZI93 of 2(tt7 and t91T ot 2O 18 are filed aggrieved by the orders dated 09_08.2017 passed by the Prl.District Judge, I(hammam (for short ,,the rrial Court,,) in E.A.No.98 of 2017, E.A.No.184 of 2017 and tr.A.Nc,.185 of 2O17 in tr.P.No.26 of 2OO5; and Civil Revision petition No.it439 of 201g is lilecl aggrieved by the order dated 09.08.2017 passed in E.p.No.26 ol 20O5 in O.S.No.64 of 2OO4 by the rrial Courr.

2. D.A.No.98 of 2O7T was filed by the Juclgment Debtor (J,l)r.)/respondent to terminate the E.p. proceedings. E.A.No.1g4 ol'2017 was filed by the Decree Holdcr (D.l{r) seeking amendment o[ Llrc execution petition and E.A.No. 1gS ol 2OIZ wzrs f]led seeking thc attachment of immovable property mention,:d in the Ep scheclule, therefore, a common order was passei in the said execution applications by the trial Court.

3. The case of the parties before the trial Court is that the Tribal Cooperative Marketing Development FederELtlon of India (TRIFFID) Limited, is a Nationar Level cooperative F.ederation, .- \-*1\l AKS,] & ETD,] 2 which functions with an objective to serve the interests of its members by conducting its affairs in professionai' democratic and autonomous manner through self help and mutual co-operation for undertaking Marketing Development of the Tribal products (ciaimant) and that it has entered into an agree ment on 2l.O3.2OOO with M / s'Khammam Cold Storage Pvt Ltd ' agreeing for storage of approximately 5OOO bags of Red Dry Chilies of TRIFED in respondent's cold storage on the terms and conditions specified in the said Agreement Subsequently' a renewal agreement was made on 30 04 2OO1 between the claimant and the respondent, as per which TRIFED kept 5824 bags i e 222 98O (net weight) of Red Dry Chilies with the respondent' as per thc agreement dated 21'03 2000 As the TRIFED wanted to carry forward the stocks to the next season i'e' March' 2O01 to agreement between the both parties' they December 200 1, on contract. Subsequently, another renewal made on O i.O5.2O02 for carrying forward the agreement was stocks to the next season i'e' March' 2OO2 to Decembcr' 2OO2' Again the respondent has agreed for the same As per Clause-2 of the terms and conditions of the renewal agreement dated 01.05.2002, the claimant had agreed to pay Rs'63/- lor one bag of Red Dry Chilies per season for the period from March' 2OO2 to 3 1"t Decemb er, 2OO2 subject to the condition mentioned in have renewed 3 A(S,J & ETD,] Clause-3. That the stocks from the cold storage u,ill be lifted after paying the rental charges by the claimant ancl if the storage continued beyond December, 2OO2, t]rle claimant agreed to pay a monthly rent of Rs.10/- pcr bag to the respondent for further extended period. As per Clause No.3 of the agreernent along with Clause No.2, the respondent agreed to charge only monthly rent of Rs. 1O/- per bag for the quantities lifted prior to 31,r July, 2OO2. It \r'as lurther agreed that if the storage continued beyond

31.O7.2OO2, the claimant agreed to pay the full season ren[ of Rs.63/- i.c. from March 2002 to December 2OO2 per bag lor the balance stock available after 31.O7.2OO2. Clause No.6 of the reneu,al .rgreement stipulated that the respondent sha1l ensure proper and requisite temperature of 3 to 5 deg,ree Centigrade maintained in the cold storage for preserving thc colour and qu:rlity of Recl Dry Chilies and also to maintain a Temperature Log Book ancl rccord the temperatures regularly and that the saicl record shoulcl be provided to the claimant at the tirne of their visit from time tci time. While so, differences aros,: between the claimant ancl lhe respondent relating to the perfrrrntance of the agrccment br the respondent, thus, the claimant invoked the arbitration clause and as per the agreed terms, the maLter lx,,as rcferred to solc Arbi[rator at Delhi. 4 AKS,I & ETD,] .- \'..-{-.1 \t '\l !

4. A perusal of the award passcd by the Arbitrator reveals that, despite the notice dated 72.09.20O3 sent Lo the respondent by courier and received by them on 15.09.2003, nobody on behalf of the respondent appeared before the Arbitrator, even on

01.10.2003. Therefore, on the request of the claimant, Lhe Arbitrator has conducted ex parte proceedings and has taken the evidence of claimant and passed an award.

5. The grievance of the claimant before the Arbitrator was that the respondent is at fault in not complying with the delivcry of thc red dry chilies bags at their request. Their contention is that a request was made to release 583 bags i.e. 40.917 MTs of Red Chilies but the respondent has released only 19.122 MTs as per their sales invoice dated 02.08.2003, thus there was a shortage of 2I.795 MTs, which forms the basis for the claim lodged by thc claimant. Thus, for the short supply of 21 .795 MTs of dry red chilies by the respondent and due to the non performance of contractual obligations by the respondent, the claimant has suffered a loss of Rs. 10,48,324/ -. Thus, he claimed the said amount before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator has passed the award to that effect, holding that the claimant is entitled to recover Rs.10,48,324.64 paise with interest @,12%o per annum chargeable from the date of filing of the claim till rcalization. 5 AKS,J & ETD,]

6. Based on the said award dated 29.12.2OO3, an DP was filed before Lhe Principal District Court, Khammam i.e. trP No.26 of 2OO5 was filed lor realization of amount of Rs.14,83,261/-. Along \r,ith decreetal amoun I the D. Hr has claimed 1 2oZ interesl from

29.ll.2OO1 to 28.04.2005, as disclosed from tl're calculation memo hlcd bf ihe D.l{r before the Pr1. Distl'ict- Court on

02.06.2016, u'herein by calculating the said interest, il came up to Rs.4,29,813/ and the EP costs of Rs.5,124/- wcre added to it, thus, thel' claimed a total of Rs. 14,83,261.64 paise before the Prl. District Court, Khammam.

7. The au,ard itself discloses clearly that the intcrest shall be calculated from the date of filing the claim petition till realization.

8. A pcrusal ol the arvard reveals that the clairn petition was hlecl on 15.09.2003 but the interest has been cirlculated from

29.ll.2ool, hor'r,ever, during the pendency of EF, l-re has filed anotlter t:alculation rnemo on 01.06.2016 star ing that the subsequent interest l'rom the date of fi1ing EP comes up to Rs.I3,94,62 1 I ancl thus, the J.Dr is due to an extent of I?s.28,77,883.,19 paisc' and on the basis of su:h calculation mcmo, thc Prl. Districr Court issued warrant of ,rr resL of J.Dr. Thereafter, the J.Dr. has prcfcrred a revision and obtained a Stay of arrcst and the J.Dr has paid the EP amount of Its.14,83,261/- 6 AKS,J & EID,J \-,:i i vide D.D.No.OOOS88 dated 3O.03.2017, HDFC Bank, Krishna Nagar Branch. Thus, the contention of decree holder is that thc J.Dr is still required to pay a balance of Rs.15,O0,467/ and thcrefore, the D.Hr filed E.A.No.1 84 of 2OlZ to permrt him r<r amend the column No.9 of the Ep to include the said amount towards his claim in the E.p., while J.Dr has filed tr.A.No.98 ol 2OO7 Lo terminate the proceedings in tr.p. as he has already paid the EP amount through demand draft. 9 has allowed E.A.No.9g of 2OO7 proceedings, while dismissing both Considering the pleadings and submissions, the trial Courr and terminated the trp the EAs filed by the D. Hr seeking amendment and attachment of immovable properties respectively. Aggrieved by the said orders, the present CRps are liled.

10. Heard the submissions of Sri M.M..M.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner/D.Hr and Sri siva S Lanka, learnccr counsel for the respondent/J. Dr. 1 1. The learned coirnsel for the D.Hr has submitted that the J.Dr has not paid the total amount as calculated by them and that lhe J.Dr has paid only the Ep amount but the subsequent interest has to be paid till the date of realization and thus. the l 7 A(S,J & ETD,J trial court ought to have allou,ed the execution aprplicatrons hled by them, seeking for amendment and further attachment of immovable property ol the J.Dr. He further argued that the TRIFtrD has suffered a lot, as the cold storage unit, Khammam has failed to release the quar-rtities as requested b1'them and has failed to pay the amounts to recoup the said loss il supply of red chilies. He therefore, prayed this Court to set asicie the orders of the trial Court by allorvirrg tl-re CRP, so that they can further realize the future inrcrcst to be paid by the D.I-lr.

12. The counsel lor the J.Dr has argued that the D.Hr has appointed the Arbitra[or r-rnilate rally and has obtai:red an ex parte ar,,,ard and lhat in lact there is no default committed by the cold storage unit ancl thar ars thc Lime passcs thcrc would be reduction in the tonnagc of the red chilies as lhey get driecl uLp, though they are kept undcr the cold sLorage and that the D.Hr without obserwing any such conditions has unila[erally took a decision lhat the cold storagc uni[ ]ras committed delaurlt and has approachcd thc Arbitrator and got the award in ltis favour. He further argued that the a'"vard passed by the Arbitrator is to the extcnt of Rs. 10,48,324 -6.1 paisc r,r,ith interest @ 129'0 from thc date of petition i.e. 15.09.20O3 but thc D.Hr has calculaLecl thc interest from 29.11.2001 to 28.O4.2OO5, which is erroneous and has AKS,] & ETD,] t arrived at Rs. 14,83,2 6l I - in the tr.P. He further argued that thc D.Hr has been harassing them continuously and is nol allowing the uniL to function in a proper manner causing loss to the J Dr' He furlher submittcd that just to overcome lhc situation and to reset the unit into functional mode, J.Dr has paid the EP amount by way of demancl draft dated 30.03.2017, but still the D Hr with a vic',v to continuc his hardssment has hled the execulion applications to amend the EP and further to attach the immovable propcrty o[ the J.Dr., which were rightly dismissed by the tri:rl Courr. He furlhcr argued that since they have already paid the IiP amount, the trial court has considcred the said fact and terminated the DP proceedings and therefore, prayed to uphold the said orde rs of the Prl. District Court, Khammam

13. A pcrusal ol the recorcl reveals that the D Hr filed the claim petitior-r on 15.09.2003 before the Arbitrator and the award is Lo the cffect that the D.Hr is entitled to recover Rs 10,48,324'64 paise and intcrest from the date of claim petition till its realization. The llP was filed calculating the interest amount from

29.ll.2}Ol till the date of filing EP i.e. 28 'O4 '2OO5 ' When the award itself shows that he is entitied to seek interest from thc date of claim Pctitton t-e. he has calculated the interest from On such calculation, he has arrivecl

29.1l.2OO1 to 28 04 '2OOS 9 AKS,J & ETD,] at an amount of Rs.14,83,261/- as on the date of filing EP, which means to say that it includes the interest @12%o per annum till he filed the EP for rcalizatiorr.

14. The record further discloses that the J.Dr has deposited the said trP amount on 30-03.20 17 through a Demanci Draft and thus, has filed E.A.No.98 of 2017 for termination of trp proceedings.

15. Now the contention of the D.Hr is that though he has filed an EP for Rs.1a,83,261/-, he is enritled to the subsequenI interest @l2o/o frorn the date of filing trP tilt the date on which he filed this subsequent calculation memo rvhich is found at material page No.37 submitted by the D.Hr.

16. In the normal course, n hile filing an trp th: D.Hr would calculale the principal amoun[ and the interest payable till the date of execution petition and the same would be realized through the said execution proccedings. The same was realized, as the J.Dr has paid the amount. No doubt the trp has been kept pending from 2005 to 20 16 for scveral reasons.

17. The contention of J.Dr in his tr.A.No .98 ol 2Ol7 is that the proceedings were protracted by the D.Hr and that the D.Hr has bcen harassing and obstructing their business. It is further 10 AKS,J & ETD,I '''. i '..1 submitted b], the J.Dr in his application that his movables also were attached by the D.Hr. The record further discioses that the D.Hr has filed an EP to attach the immovable property and it was attached. Subsequently, il was raised on a memo ltled by thc d.Hr and that the D.Hr has sought only the attachment of movable property.

18. The plcadings and the record lurther reveal that the prayer of the D.Hr to amend the execution petition including thc additional amounts whicl-r vvould result in a total revival of the claim. The said intercst is calculated for a period of 14 years and originally, the exccution pelition is filed for specific amount aftcr calculating the intcresL till the date of filing trP but there is no spccific prayer for subsequent interest. lg. A perusal of the trP reveals that the execution is prayed only in respect of the specific amount i.e. Rs. 14,83,26I l- and therc is no prayer with regard to the subsequent interest from the date of execution petition till the date ol realization.

20. Rule 209 of Civil Rules of Practice is extracted hereunder lor the sake of refercnce "2O9. Application for execution:- (l)Except when made under Order Xxi, Rule l1(1) of the Code, an application for cxecution of a decree shall be by petition and, in addition to the particulars set forth in Ordcr Xxi , Rule 1 1(2) of the Code, shall be headed r.vith the causc titlc of the surt and separately numbered in each suit. 11 AKS,] & ETD,] (2)The petition shall, if it retates to any property of tlre judgment debtor, pray for the realization thereof, in the manner appropriate to the nature of the property, as in Form. No. 53 and shall also set out the \ "hole of the relief which the Applicant requires at the time of presenting the same. The court shall not grant any relief not claimed by the execution petition."

21. Thus, in view of the said rule, the executin5i Court cannot grant a relief beyond what is prayed. When there, is no specific prayer in the execution petition, with regard to L,te subsequent intcrest till the date of realization, then, the cxecuting Court cannot grant the said relief.

22. Further, a perusal of the award revcals thal the Arbitrator is none other than the Managing direcLor of thc D.Hr organization and the amount of Rs.10,32,4 15.64 paise is claimed for short supply of 21.795 MTs for dry chilies but the mode of calculation for arriving at such an amount lor the default corrrmitted by the J.Dr is not shown by the D.l{r and thc Arbitrator also has failed to make a note of the said mode of calculation. Howcvsp, this Court is not inclined to look into the merits and demcrirs, o[-the award passed by the Arbitrator but it is confined [o the qure,stion involved in the present revision petitions as to the irreg-rlarity if any committed by the trial court in passing the impugnerl orders. In view of the prayer in the execution petition ior recovery of Rs. 14,83,261/- which includes the interest oi l2o/o from 29.11.2OOL to 28.O4.2OO5, the J.Dr has alreadv raid the saicl 12 AK5,J & ETD,] 1 amount through the said de mand draft. It is opined that the total EP amount is satisfied by the J.Dr., having paid the said amount under the Demand Draft. Thus, the trial Court was right in terminating thc execution proceedings by allowing the execution applica[ion hled by thc J.Dr vide trA No.98 of 2017 and on the other hand, the application filed by the D.Hr for the amendmenL of EP seeking fur[her inclusion of subsequent interest for a period of 14 years and to realizc the said amount, another EA filed for the attachment of immovable property are bound to be dismissed, as they do not have any legal sanctity and the trial Cour[ has done the same.

24. In view of the aforcsaid discussion, the revision petitionerlD.Hr failed to make out any ground to interfere with the order of the trial Court- Therelore, it is held that the orders of the trial Court allor.ving tr.A.No.98 of 2Ol7 and dismissing tr.A.Nos. 184 and 185 ol 2Ol7 do not suffer from any material irregularlty and are found to be based on sound, legal principles, therefore, the same are entitled to be upheld and thus, all the revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

25. A11 the civii revision petitrorrs are, accordingly, dismissed and in the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs' -- 13 AKS,] & ETD,I MiscellaneousPetitionspending,i[any,shallstandclosed //TRUE COPY// SD/- A.V.S. PRASAD DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECT OFFICER To,

1. The Principal District Judge, Khammam, Khammam District Z. One CC to Sri M M M Srinivasa Rao, Advocate [OPUCI 3. One CC to Sri Siva S Lanka, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies ADK/gh HIGH COURT DATED:0210512025 I COMMON ORDER ,/--: r .j (:,\ -,:. ( lr: :r" 0I SEP 2025 CRP.Nos.6996 and 7193 ot 2O17 & 1917 and 3439 of 2018 :t /'ir : DISMISSING ALL THE CRPS WITHOUT COSTS