APHC010028402025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the twenty fourth day of July two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No Between: 1. Shaik Mehmood Bee, W/o years, Muslim, Housewife Kurnool City. 1. Shaik Zaibunnisa Begum 40 years, Muslim, Housewife, R/o. 31/16 Kurnool City. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. M.D. Sharfuddin Counsel for the Respondent: 1. G.Sravan Kumar The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the twenty fourth day of July two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 934 of 2025 Shaik Mehmood Bee, W/o. Shaik Abdul Mannan, aged about Housewife, R/o D.No.31/25, Chittari Street, ...Petitioner and Shaik Zaibunnisa Begum, W/o. Shaik Maqbool Basha, aged about 40 years, Muslim, Housewife, R/o. 31/16-C, Chittari Street, ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: [3311] Thursday, the twenty fourth day of July two thousand and twenty five aged about 70 Chittari Street, Petitioner ged about C, Chittari Street, ...Respondent 2 BSB, J C.R.P.No.934 of 2025 O R D E R: This petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 20.12.2024 dismissing the petition in E.A.No.461 of 2024 in E.P.No.3 of 2022 in R.C.C.No.10 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool filed by J.D.r to summon H.Rabia @ H.Sabiha Rahman under Order XVI, Rules 1 and 6 and Section 151 C.P.C. 2. The case of the petitioner /JDr. is briefly as follows: The petitioner is a tenant under Abdul Rahman and his wife H.Rabia @ H.Sabiha Rahman who are the landlords. Abdul Rahman has been maintaining the petition schedule house for a long time and collecting rents from the petitioner since 1995 and gradually increased the rate of rent from time to time, but the tenancy is oral. The landlords have not issued any receipts acknowledging the rents paid by the petitioner. The petitioner is a widowed lady. The landlords told the petitioner that they would sell the petition schedule house to the petitioner. The petitioner advanced some part amount of consideration to the landlords. The petitioner sustained heavy loss to a tune of Rs.4,00,000/- during the floods in the year 2009 as the schedule property was damaged. The petitioner spent huge amount to remodel the house after floods. During the month of February, 2016, the landlords suddenly demanded the petitioner to vacate the house stating that they had sold the property to others. On enquiry, the petitioner came to know that the property had been sold to the D.Hr. keeping the petitioner in dark and without informing her in violation of her right to purchase the property as was promised by the landlords. Having no other go, the petitioner approached many persons for mediation, but in vain. Therefore, it is necessary to summon the above witness. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.No.934 of 2025 3. The petition was opposed by filing the counter of the D.Hr. stating that previously the petitioner had filed petition for summoning the same witness with false address vide I.A.No.450 of 2024 in the very same execution petition and the petition had been not pressed by the petitioner after reading the contents of the counter filed therein. Again, the present petition was filed with the same averments with another false address. The D.Hr. / respondent already examined herself as PW.1 and closed her evidence on 26.07.2023. Thereafter, J.Dr. / petitioner was examined as R.W.1 and two more witnesses were examined. The present petition was filed only to drag on the proceedings and harass the D.Hr. Moreover, the petitioner herself admitted that the enquiry by her had revealed that the property had been sold by her landlords to the D.Hr. The petitioner is a willful defaulter of rent since June, 2016 till date as she has not even deposited any rent. She cannot contest the execution petition. Though she already examined RWs.1 to 3, again this petition was filed with false averments and false story to drag on the petitioner’s case. The enquiry made by the respondent / D.Hr. reveals that H.Rabia is staying in the U.S.A. with her only son and she had sold her house and that her husband also died recently. Therefore, the respondent prayed to dismiss the petition. 4. After hearing both the parties, the execution Court dismissed the petition holding that since the decree was passed after adjudicating and determining all the facts stated in the present petition sought to be proved through the proposed witness, at the stage of execution, it is not necessary to call the witness to prove the said facts. 5. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is necessary to summon the witness to prove the facts. 4 BSB, J C.R.P.No.934 of 2025 7. The learned counsel for the respondent opposed inference in the revision stating that the petitioner cannot raise these pleas in the execution petition and that the previous attempt made by the petitioner also failed. 8. So long as the decree against the revision petitioner is final and binding, she cannot prove the facts which she proposes to prove now. As such, there is no need to summon the witness proposed. Moreover, inspite of a specific stand taken by the respondent / D.Hr. that the address of the witness given earlier was false and presently is also false, no effort was made by the petitioner to furnish the correct address of the witness. It would lead to further indefinite prolongation of the matter in the enquiry in the execution petition. The execution Court shall make every endeavour for expeditious disposal of the execution petition. Therefore, the petition cannot be allowed in a casual manner for mere asking sake, without there being any genuine reason for summoning the witness. This Court does not see any irregularity committed by the execution Court. 9. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.24.07.2025 PNV