APHC010339872025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH at AMARAVATI FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1624 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the return endorsement order dated 17.05.2025 in EP. No. 423 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Vijayawada, Krishna District. Between: /2025 in O S No Yenduri Srinivasa Rao, S/o. Venkateswara Rao, Aged about 55 Years, R/o Door No. 13-78, Kankipadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ...Petitioner/DHr. AND Medandravu Srinivasa Rao, S/o Late Raghava Rao, Aged about 56 years. Shop No.3, Main Road, Kankipadu Village and Mandal, Krishna District. ...Respondent/JDr. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI CH.MARKONDAIAH Counsel for the Respondent: -- The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION petition NO: 1624/2025 ORDER: Heard Sri Ch.Markondaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is the plaintiff/decree holder in He filed E.P for execution of the decree passed in the suit. The learned Court raised the objection dated 17.05.2025, as follows: O.S.No.423 of 2018. As per the decree when the arrears of rent is granted how the DHR is entitled for damages to be explained Calculation with details to be noted. Hence, returned time 7 days. ” 3. The petitioner represented the E.P on 16.06.2025, inter alia that the DHR is also entitled for the damages in terms of the decree in addition to the arrears of rent. 4. However, by the endorsement dated 28.06.2025 Execution Petition has again been returned, which i under: the IS as “ Judgment copy to be enclosed for reference and the objection date 17.5.25 holds good" 2 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner copy of the decree in O.S.No.428 of 2018. reads as under: has annexed the The decree 0 that the suit be and same is hereby decreed with costs; ii) that the defendant is hereby directed to the plaint schedule property and to deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule to the plaintiff three months from the date judgment. vacate the property - of this Hi) that the defendant is further directed to pay an amount of Rs.22,500/-towards arrears of rent and Rs.4500/- per month from 01.05.2018 till defendant vacates and deliver the . . , the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff towards the damages for use and occupation of the plaint schedule property, falling which the plaintiff is entitled to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule property and also to recover the said arrears and damages from the defendant by following due process of law. IV) that the defendant is also do pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 9240/-towards costs of the suit and also do bear his own costs of Rs.2102/- costs of the suit.” towards 6. Prima facie, the direction in the decree under point No.(iii) shows that the damages have also been the plaintiff/decree holder. awarded to 7. There appears to be force in the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that at the time of Execution Petition, the petition could not be registration of returned with 3 such objections, when the decree on the face of it awarded damages. The Execution Court has no jurisdiction at the stage of registration to object as to how the decree holder is entitled for damages. The Execution Court cannot go behind the decree to question the entitlement of damages which has been allowed by the decree for a period different from the period for which arrears of rent has been allowed. In Sunder Dass v. Ram Prakash\ the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the law is well settled that an executing court cannot go behind the decree nor can it question its legality or correctness. The exception has also been laid down to the general rule and that is ‘the lack of inherent jurisdiction’ in the court passing the decree. 8. 9. In Sanwarlal Agrawal and others v. Ashok Kumar Kothari and others^, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated the same principle. In para-16, it was observed and held as under: “ 16. This Court has time and again cautioned against the Execution Court adopting such an approach. In Topanmal Chhotamal v. Kundomal Gangaram, a three-Judge Bench held as follows: "(1977) 2 see 662 ' (2023) 7 see 307 4 "5.... It is a well-settled principle that a court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree: it must take the decree as it stands, for the decree is binding and conclusive between the parties to the suit". Similarly, in Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa(since deceased thr.Lrs.) and others^, the Hon’ble Apex Court, observed specifically at para 10 that the 10. executing court can never go behind the decree and it cannot examine the validity of the order of the court, unless the court’s order itself is without jurisdiction. Para 10 of the said judgment reads as under; ‘‘10. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provision shows that all questions between the parties can be decided by the executing court. But the important aspect to remember is that these questions are limited to the ‘‘execution of the decree”. The executing court can never go behind the decree. Under Section 47, CPC the executing court cannot examine the validity of the order of the court which had allowed the execution of the decree in 2013, unless the court's order is itself without jurisdiction. More importantly this order (the order dated 12.02.2013), was never challenged by the tenants/judgment debtors before any forum. ” In view of the aforesaid judgments, the position in law is well settled that the executing court cannot go behind the decree nor question its legality or correctness, except, where the decree is without jurisdiction, lacking inherent jurisdiction. The return of the execution petition by the executing court cannot be sustained. This Court would 11. ^ 2023 see OnLihe Se 1395 5 further observe that even such questions if the decree is executable or not and whether the decree is by a court having no jurisdiction or such other questions which may be gone into the execution proceedings as permitted under law, they can be seen only after registration of the E.P. The registration of the execution petition cannot be refused on any such ground, on which Execution Petition has been returned in the present case. 12. There is no need to issue notice to the respondent as the E.P has been returned at the stage of registration. 13. The Civil Revision petition is allowed. 14. Let the original of the Execution Petition, as filed before the Execution Court and annexed to the Civil Revision Petition be duly returned as per the procedure for presentation before the Execution Court again. The concerned Execution Court shall carefully peruse the decree and pass the orders for registering the E.P. 15. 16. The petitioner shall however comply with the direction of the Execution Court to submit the copy of the judgment of the Trial Court passed in O.S.No.423 of 2018. M ^ 6 17. There shall be no order as to costs. 18. As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications, if pending, shall also stand closed. any Sd/- P VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECftON OFFICER One Fair Copy to the Hon’ble Sri Justice RAVI NATH TILHARI (For His Lordship’s Kind Perusal) To, 1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Vijayawada, Krishna District. 2. One CC to Sri Ch. Markondaiah, Advocate [OPUC] 3. The Section Officer, V.R Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh 4. The Section Officer, New Filing Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh. 5. Nine (09) L.R. Copies. 6. The Under Secretary, Union of India, Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, New Delhi. 7. The Secretary, Andhra Pradesh High Court Advocates’ Association Library, High Court Buildings, Amaravathi. 8. Two CD Copies GPC vna ii A HIGH COURT DATED: 18/07/2025 £f> 1« AUG 20?5 X ORDER CRP NO. 1624 OF 2025 m O ^ . Current Section . ^ ALLOWING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS