APHC010595382023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO- 29 09 ^'^ -09-2023 passed ,n E.P.No.98 of 2018 in O.S. No.133 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. Between: 0l? ~ 1.41 t.c.d.sekhar 3169 OF 209:i 1. Kakarlapudi Usha Rani, D/o.Late Bangarraju, R/o.D,No.3-10, Alamanda Village, Jami Mandal, 2. Kakarlapudi Uma aged 57 years, Vizianagaram District, aged 55 years, Mandal, Vizianagaram District. Devi, R/o.D.No.3-10, Alamanda Village, Jami D/o.Late Bangarraju, ...PETITIONERS/DECREE HOLDERS AND Kakarlapudi Venkata Suryanarayana Raju, S/o.Late Sita Rama Raiu aged 62 years, C/o.Srinivasa Fruit Juice RTC Complex, Vizianagaram. Center, Fathima Plaza, Near ...RESPONDENT/JUDGMENT DEBTOR jA NO: 1 OF 20?? Petition filed under Section 151 CPC stated in the affidavit filed i praying that in the circumstances in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant an Interim direction restraining the respondent herein from alienating the Schedule Property by executing sham and collusive documents and in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the Schedule Property in E.P.No.98 of 2018 in O.S.No.133 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram, during the pendency of,above CRP. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between: Kakarlapudi Venkata Suryanarayana Raju, S/o.Late Sita Rama Raju, Hindu, aged 62 years, C/o.Srinivasa Fruit Juice Center, Fathima Plaza, Near RTC Complex, Vizianagaram. ...PETITIONER/RESPONDENT AND 1. Kakarlapudi Usha Rani, D/o.Late Bangarraju, aged 57 years, R/o.D.No.3-10, Alamanda Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District. 2. Kakarlapudi Umadevi, D/o.Late Bangarraju, aged 55 years, R/o.D.No.3- 10, Alamanda Village, Jami Mandal, Vizianagaram District. ...RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS Petition filed 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 vacate the orders passed in IA.No.1 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.3169 of 2023, dated 08-12-2023. Counsel for the Petitioners : SRI K.JYOTHI PRASAD, ADVOCATE REPRESENTING SMT VASAVI RATNA KUMARI DANDAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent: SRI P.GOPALA KRISHNA The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010595382023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3169/2023 Between: 1.KAKARLAPUDI USHA RANI, D/0 LATE BANGARRAJU, AGED 57 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.3-10, ALAMANDA VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL, VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. 2.KAKARLAPUDI UMA DEVI,, D/0 LATE BANGARRAJU, AGED 55 YEARS, R/0 D.NO.3-10. ALAMANDA VILLAGE, JAMI MANDAL. VIZIANAGARAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER{S) AND 1.KAKARLAPUDI VENKATA SURYANARAYANA RAJU, S/o Late Sita Rama Raju, Aged 62 years, C/o. Srinivasa Fruit Juice center, Fathima Plaza, Vizianagaram. Near RTC complex. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of india,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toAggrieved by the orders passed in E.P.No. 98 of 2018 in O.S. No. 133 of 2006 Dated 29- 09-2023 on the file of Senior Civil Judge's Court, Vizianagaram lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant Interim Order restraining the respondent herein from alienating the Schedule Property by executing Sham and Collusive Documents and in interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the petitioners in respect of the Schedule Property in E.P.No.98 of 2018 in O.S.No.l33 of 2006 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s praying that in the an Court, Vizianagaram, during the pendency of above CRP, in the interest of Justice and to pass lA NO: 1 OF 2024 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 pleased to vacate the orders passed in IA.No.1 of 2023 in C.R.P.No.3169 of 2023 dated 8-12-2023 and pass Counsel for the Petltioner(S): 1.VASAVI RATNA KUMARI DANDAMUDI Counsel for the Respondent; 1.PGOPALA KRISHNA 3 The Court made the following order: The present revision petition is filed aggrieved by order dated 29.09.2023, passed in E.P.No.98 of 2018 in OS No.133 of 2006, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram. The petitioners are the decree holders. It is the case of the petitioners that, they have filed suit in O.S.No.133 of 2006, for specific performance based on agreement of sale dated 28.03.2003, directing the respondent/defendant, to execute registered sale deed in their favour, in respect of plaint schedule property, by receiving balance sale consideration of Rs.20,000/-, and if the defendant failed to do so, the Court may be pleased to execute and register sale deed in their favour. The said suit was contested by the respondent, and after hearing the parties, it was decreed by judgment and decree dated 24.08.2011, directing the defendant to execute the registered sale deed in favor of the plaintiffs on receipt of balance sale consideration, within two (02) months from the date of judgment. Further, the defendant was also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 19,372/-, towards costs of suit. Assailing the correctness of the said judgment and decree, the respondent/defendant preferred a regular appeal vide AS.No. 10 of 2012, on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram. Eventually, the said decree dated 22.04.2013. appeal was dismissed by judgment Thereafter, the petitioners/decree vide E.P.No.98 of 2018 and holders filed execution petition Order XXI Rule 34 CPC, debtor, seeking to direct registered sale deed i said execution petition under against the respondent/judgment the judgment debtor to in favour of the petitioners/plaintiffs. execute The was contested by the respondent and the same was dismissed by order dated 29.09.2023. Questioning the said order, the present revision petition is filed. 2. Heard Sri K.Jyothi Prasad, petitioners and Sri P.Gopala Krishna respondent. learned counsel for , learned counsel for the the 3. Perused the material available on record. 4. It is not in dispute that the trial by the petitioners directing the court decreed the suit filed respondent/judgment debtor, to execute registered sale deed in favor of the petitioners receiving the balance sale consideration. petitioners that, consideration of Rs.20,000/-. that, subsequent to the decree per the decree, they have paid balance as sale It IS further case of the petitioners passed by the trial court, initially 5 they preferred execution petition vide EP No.145 of 2011, seeking to execute registered sale deed. In the said execution petition, the respondent/defendant filed counter affidavit stating that, through decree dated 24.08.2011, the plaintiffs are directed to pay balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/-, but the petitioners/decree holders paid an amount of Rs.20,000/-, and the same is not in consonance with the decree, and therefore, the same cannot be put into execution as such the execution petition is not maintainable. Subsequently, the said EP No. 145 of 2011, was dismissed for default by order dated 14.10.2015. It is further case of the petitioners that, upon realizing that the petitioners have not complied with the condition imposed under the decree, they have filed an application on 06.08.2018 under Section 148 and Section 151 CPC in the suit, seeking to grant leave to them to deposit an amount of Rs.5,000/-, towards balance sale consideration by enlarging/extending time from 14.10.2011 to the date going to be fixed by the executing court. Incidentally, the petitioners also filed execution petition vide EP No.98 of 2018, to direct the respondent to execute sale deed in the their favour. In the said execution petition respondent/judgment debtor filed counter affidavit stating that. 6 the petitioners are not entitled to seek execution of the decree under Order XXI Rule 34 CPC, inasmuch as the petitioners did not choose to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs.25,000/- in the court, on or before 24.10.2011 i.e., within two (02) months from the date of decree. After hearing the parties, by impugned order the said execution petition was dismissed on the ground that, the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and the deposit made by the petitioners towards balance sale consideration is not in consonance with the decree passed by the trial court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners strenuously contends that, the balance sale consideration was paid pursuant to order dated 30.08.2018, passed in application vide GR No.4586, which was filed under Section 148 and Section 151 CPC, seeking to grant leave to them to deposit the balance sale consideration. The learned counsel for the respondent disputed the same by stating that, the execution court never passed any such order on 30.08.2018, permitting the petitioners to pay the balance sale consideration. As the respondent denied that, no such order was passed by the Court, permitting the petitioners to 7 y; deposit the balance sale consideration, this Court, on 09.04.2025, passed the following order: “The learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, to furnish report, with factual information, with regard to the numbering of affidavit in O.S.No.133 of 2006, filed on 06.08.2018, and also with regard to the order passed on 30.08.2018." 6. In pursuance thereof, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, submitted report dated 29.04.2025 and the same is placed on record. On perusal of the said report, it is stated that, upon thorough review of case records, it has been observed that, the affidavit dated 06.08.2018, filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.133 of 2006, was filed on 10.08.2018 and the same was allotted GR No.4586, dated 10.08.2018, and the said application was not assigned a specific numbering of lA in the court records. The said report further reads that, the clerk concerned put up note by mentioning the prayer portion of the petition and the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, made order as “permitted”. and the said order was duly signed by the then Senior Civil Judge, permitting the petitioners to deposit the amount. Along with the said report, a copy of the petition and the affidavit were 8 also submitted for perusal of this clear that, the petitioners have filed 148 and Section 151 CPC, Court. From the said report it is an application under Section seeking permission of the Court extend time to comply with the decree. Though the same allotted GR.4586 dated 10.08.2018, with lA number. Further, to was the same is not assigned on perusal of the note prepared by the concerned clerk, an inference was placed before the whether to number the learned Senior Civil can be drawn that, the application presiding officer for passing orders, or not. Thereafter, the said application Judge made an endorsement stating permitted on 30.08.2018. Taking advantage of the said endorsement of the learned judge, the petitioners paid balance sale consideration of Rs.5,000/- by challan dated 01.09.2018 if the learned Senior Civil Judge , as has allowed the application filed perusal of the note furnished by the can be construed that, the said application by the petitioners. On careful concerned clerk, it filed by the petitioners take a decision whether to the same, the i not numbered and the The learned Senior was placed before the presiding officer number the same to or not. Apart from interlocutory application filed by the petitioners is same was assigned with GR No.4586 Civil Judge, having perused the note 9 prepared by the concerned clerk, permitted the same to number the said application. The petitioners were under the impression that, the trial court has granted permission to them, and accordingly they paid the balance sale consideration. From the above it can be construed that, the application filed by the petitioners seeking to extend time to comply with the decree is pending consideration before the concerned court. 7. f 8. Further, neither the said application was numbered, nor was any notice issued to the respondent. Furthermore, no hearing took place on the said application. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination it can be construed that, the court granted permission to the petitioners to deposit the balance sale consideration. For the reasons recorded supra, the finding of the executing court that though the delay was condoned and that the time for deposit of the remaining sale consideration was extended, is not sustainable, inasmuch as, no such permission was granted to the petitioners. Accordingly, the said observation of the court alone is set aside. For the reasons stated above, the execution petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed. 10 9. In view of the above, the and the petitioners civil revision petition is dismissed pursue their remedies by them in no order as to are at liberty to available under law, including the application filed G.R.No.4586, dated 10.08.2019. costs. There shall be As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. A oc?o-r RAO assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, T The CivilJudge (Senior 2. One CC to Smt Vasavi i 3. One CC to Sri P.Gopala 4. The Section Officer Amaravathi 5. Two CD Copies BSV TAC Division), Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram Ratna Kumari Dandamudi, I Krishna, Advocate [OPUC] VR Section, High Court District. Advocate [OPUC] of Andhra Pradesh at HIGH COURT DATED:03/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 3169 OF 2023 DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS