IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAV. THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE i PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 320 OF 2025 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 to aggrieved by the docket Order dt. 30-12- 2024 in E.A.No.64 of 2015 in E.P.No.330 of 2007 in O.S.No.214 of 1992 on the file of the court of the II Addl. Junior civil Judge at Kurnool. Between: 1. K Venkateswaramma @ Hema Lalitha Kumari, D/o. Late K.Siva Sankara Reddy, Aged about 35 Years, W/o. Rad Channa Reddy, now resident of Pedda Kammaluru Village, Rudravaram Mandal, Kurnool Taluk, Kurnool District 2. K. Lakshmi Devamma,, W/o.late K.Sivasankara Reddy, Aged about 72 years, R/o.Bastipadu Village, Kurnool Taluk, Kurnool District. ...PETITIONER(S)/JDrs AND 1. Y Ravindranath Reddy, S/o. Y.Siva Rami Reddy, Aged about 44 years, R/o.Salkapuram Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 2. K.Ranga Swamy, S/o. K.Govindu, Aged. Major, R/o.Chinnatekur Village, Kallur Mandal, Kurnool District. 3. B.Parameswar Reddy, S/o. late B.Giri Reddy, Aged. Major, R/0.H.N0.45/142-7B, Venkata Ramana Colony, Kurnool. 4. S. Chandra Sekhar Reddy, S/o. S.Keshalu Reddy, Aged.Major, R/0.H.N0.77/I86-D-5, Police colony Kallur Estate, Kurnool City. ...RESPONDENTS/DHrs lA NO: 1 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 grant to stay of all further proceedings including delivery of property in E.P.No.330 of 2007 in OS.No.214 of 1992 on the file of the court of the II Addl. Junior Civil Judge at Kurnool pending disposal of the main Revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRI. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI VARUN BYREDDY The Court made the following: APHC010051842025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Thursday, the tenth day of April, Two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S.Bhanumathi [3311] Civil Revision Petition No.320 of 2025 Between: K Venkateswaramma @ Hema Lalitha Kumari and others ...Petitioners and Y Ravindranath Reddy and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: 1.Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy Counsel for the respondents: I.Varun Byreddy 2. Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai The Court made the following order: This petition is filed under section 115 of CPC against the order dated 30.12.2024 dismissing the petition in E.A.No.64 of 2015 in E.P.No.330 of 2007 in O.S.No.214 of 1992 on the file of the Court of ll-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District, filed under section 47 CPC by the J.Drs. 1. 2 BSB,J CRP No.320 of 2025 The petitioner filed the suit against the 2'^'^ petitioner and the respondent for permanent injunction. They entered into the compromise and it was recorded and a decree was passed on 30.07.1999. As per the terms of the compromise, the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 shall pay Rs. 1,25,000/- to the defendant No.2 before the end of the April, 2000 and plaintiff and defendant No.1 are permitted to effect sale of the suit schedule properties before the said date and pay sale consideration to the defendant No.2 and if the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 failed to pay the amount within the stipulated date, they shall pay the balance amount, if any, with interest @ 24% p.a., from 01.05.2000 and the sale in favour of the defendant No.2 by others including Balachandra Goud was declared as null and void in so far as the plaint schedule property is concerned. The defendant No.2 is given liberty to execute the decree on payment of court fee, if the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 fail to pay Rs. 1,25,000/- within the stipulated period and there would be first charge on the plaint schedule property till the amount is paid. As the amount was not paid as agreed, the defendant No.2 filed E.P.No.330 of 2007 under Order XXI, rules 22 and 66 C.P.C., to issue notice under rule 22 and order proclamation of sale of schedule property under rule 66, to realize the decretal amount with interest i.e., for a total amount of Rs.3,30,000/-. 2. 3. Pending the execution petition, initially both the judgment debtors filed E.A.No.264 of 2010 under Order XXI, rule 90 C.P.C., against the D.Hr / defendant No.1 and the auction purchaser to set aside the sale held on 16.08.2010 on the ground of material 3 BSB,J CRP No.320 of 2025 irregularities in conducting the sale. It was contended that the decree holder had not got attached the E.P schedule properties and the execution petition was directly posted for step ‘test and sale’ (the E.P schedule property) under Order XXI, rule 66 C.P.C., and later the sale was conducted and knocked down in favour of the respondent No.2 for Rs.11,20,000/- and the matter was adjourned to 01.11.2010 for confirmation of sale. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent No.1 / D.Hr stating that there are no material irregularities in conducting the sale and that the petition is silent about the substantial injury sustained by the petitioners because of any alleged material irregularity. It is further contended that absence of attachment of the E.P schedule properties sold is not a ground to set aside the sale, as attachment under rule 54 of Order XXI of C.P.C., is not necessary in respect of mortgaged or charged properties. It is further contended that the petition was filed only to protract the matter. After hearing both the parties, the execution Court dismissed the petition on 13.12.2011 holding that mere absence of or defect in attachment by itself is not a ground to set aside the sale and further the property is already under charge by the order of the Court and thus there is no irregularity in conducting the same. It is further observed that as per Article 127 of Limitation Act, 1963, any application under Order XXI, rule 90 C.P.C., to set aside the sale in execution petition, including any application by J.Dr, has to be filed within 60 days from the date of sale, whereas the petition in E.A.No.264 of 2010 was filed beyond, from the period of 60 days and hence barred by limitation. 4. 4 BSB,J CRP No.320 of 2025 5. Aggrieved by the order, C.M.A No.06 of 2013 on the file of the Court of IV-Additional District Judge, Kurnool was filed by petitioners / J.Drs. The same was also dismissed on 30.11.2015 both on the points of limitation and that no order of attachment is required and its absence is not a irregularity to set aside the sale. Further, it was argued before the appellate Court that more property than required to satisfy the decree was sold. This argument was not accepted as the petitioners failed to take an opportunity to oppose sale of the properties as they remained ex parte and the opportunity was lost at every stage. 6. Before disposal of the C.M.A., the present petition in E.A.No.64 of 2015 was filed on 27.01.2015, before the execution Court, under section 47 C.P.C., to declare the compromise decree dated 30.07.1999 is not executable and unenforceable under law and consequently to dismiss the execution petition as not maintainable, consequently, further to hold that all the proceedings in execution are vitiated. The main grounds urged in support of the petition are that the compromise decree, since created charge over the properties, is compulsorily registerable instrument as per section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, but it was not registered. It was further contended that no attachment order was passed, and that no notice was served at the stage of Order XXI, rule 66 C.P.C., or at any stage and the proceedings in execution were taken behind the petitioners. It is also contended that the purchaser of the properties in auction is no other than close friend of the respondent No.1 / D.Hr. A reference was made to pending C.M.A No.06 of 2013. It is also contended that the respondents 5 BSBJ CRP No.320 of 2025 No.1 and 2 indulged in creating the sale certificate dated 24.02.2012 and basing on the tainted sale certificate, ignoring the appeal in C.M.A No.06 of 2013, created the sale deed in favour of their close friends who are respondents No.3 and 4 herein and basing on such sale certificate. Thus, the petitioners contended that the sale deeds in favour of the respondents No.3 and 4 are nominal and they were never acted upon. They further contended that the respondent No.4 is a journalist and used his influence in manipulation of the documents to strengthen the fabricated sale deed. The petition was opposed by filing counter of the respondent No.1 / decree holder stating mainly as follows:- The compromise decree passed on 30.07.1999 does not compulsorily require registration. The simple mortgage and charge are different. It is denied that no notices were served on the petitioners under Order XXI, rule 66 CPC or at any other stage, the respondent No.2 is a close friend of the respondent No.1 and that the sales were held in collusion. The notices were published in local newspapers as notices could not be served personally and moreover the petitioner No.2 / J.Dr No.2 engaged a counsel in the execution petition and subsequently remained ex parte for not filing counter and later proclamation of sale was also twice published in local newspapers and all such events were discussed in E.A.No.264 of 2010 which was dismissed by the execution Court on merits on 13.12.2011, and therefore, the petitioners cannot re-agitate the same grounds. The petitioners, having filed I.A.No.354 of 2014 in C.M.A No.06 of 2013 seeking permission to 7. 6 BSB,J CRP No.320 of 2025 deposit E.P amount along with 5% of the bid amount, are deterred from filing the present petition since it amounts to approbation and reprobation. There is no cause of action in filing the present petition and prayed to dismiss the petition. 8. The respondent No.2 opposed the petition by filing counter and contended as follows: The decree is being executed in pursuance of the compromise decree. In the said decree, as per term No.5, the auctioned property was kept under charge which otherwise amounts to attachment only. So, there is no need to have fresh attachment of properties and the petitioner’s contention that the sale of the property is illegal without attachment is not correct. When the Court ordered for test of property for sale, the petitioners did not object it on the ground that the properties were not attached, rather they allowed it, so they waived the right to question the sale on the ground of want of attachment. The sale held on 16.08.2010 is valid and binding on the petitioners and therefore prayed to dismiss the petition. As on 30.12.2024, since C.M.A No.06 of 2013 was disposed of on 30.11.2015 by confirming the order in E.A.No.264 of 2010, in view of the order in C.M.A, the execution Court dismissed the petition in E.A.No.64 of 2015 with one sentence brief order as follows;- 9. “In view of the order of C.M.A No.06 of 2013 dated 30.11.2015, this application is dismissed as it becomes infructuous”. 7 BSB,J CRP No.320 of 2025 10. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed on the grounds that the execution Court ought to have seen that the order dated 30.11.2015 in C.M.A No.06 of 2013 has no bearing on the adjudication of E.A.No.64 of 2015 and that the dismissal of the claim petition deprives the petitioners of their right to raise the objection as to the executability of the decree and that the order impuged in revision is erroneous, unsound and unsustainable. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the decree requires registration as the decree contained term creating charge over the property and such charged property is sought to be sold in execution and the un-enforceable decree cannot be executed and therefore executability of the decree is challenged now in the petition under section 47 CPC, and the same ground was not earlier taken in E.A.No.264 of 2010. He further submitted that the petition under section 47 CPC shall be disposed of like a petition under Order XXI, rule 97 CPC as held by the Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) through Lrs & Others Vs.V.RaJamani & Another etc\, as below; 11. “52. Thus the cumulative effect of all these rights read together is that if an application under Order XXI, Rule 97 is made, then its determination will be under Rule 101 and then Rule 103 further provides that where any application has been adjudicated upon under Rules 98 or 100, the order made thereon shall have the same force and will be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. Under Section 47 of the CPC ail questions 2025 Live Law (SC) 293 8 BSB,J CRP No.320 of 2025 relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, have to be determined by the executing court whereas under Rule 101 all questions including question relating to right, title or interest in the property arising between the parties to the proceedings have to be determined by the executing court. Section 47 is a general provision whereas Order XXI Rules 97 and 101 deal with a specific situation. Moreover, Section 47 deals with executions of all kinds of decrees whereas Order XXI, Rules 97 and 101 deal only with execution of decree for possession. Apart from that, earlier, i.e., prior to the amendment, every order falling under Section 47 was appealable (as the terms ‘decree” included the order under Section 47 of the CPC) whereas now only certain orders as provided for under Order XXI have been made appealable. 53. In such circumstances referred to above the application of the respondents No. 1 and 2 under Section 47 of the CPC bearing R.E.A. No. 163 of 2011 was in substance an application for determination of their possessory rights under Order XXI Rule 97. 54. This Court in Bhanwar Lai v. Satyanarain, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 6, has held that even an application filed under Section 47 would be treated as an application under Order XXI Rule 97 and an adjudication is required to be conducted under Rule 98. Dispossession of 9 BSB,J CRPNo.320of2025 the applicant from the property is not a condition for declining to entertain the application....” 12. He further submitted that the order is very cryptic, devoid of reasons and is liable to be set aside and if necessary matter maybe remanded for fresh adjudication. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the decree does not require registration and even if it requires registration, the decree for realization of the amount can be executed ignoring the charge and further that non-attachment of order prior to sale is not a bar for execution of the decree by sale of the property and in fact this ground was rejected in E.A.No.264 of 2010 and C.M.A No.06 of 2013. Therefore, he submitted that the petitioners cannot re-agitate the same grounds time and again by application of the principle of res judicata to inter se different stages of the same proceedings. In this regard he placed a decision of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Mehra Vs.Harijivan J.Jethwa (since deceased through Lrs) & others^. In that case, the executing Court referred to a decision of the Supreme Court in Barkat AM and another Vs. Badnnarain(dead) by L.Rs.,^where in it was reiterated the settled position of law as follows; “...the principles of res judicata are not only applicable in respect of separate proceedings but the general principles of res judicata are also applicable at the subsequent stage of the same proceedings and therefore the same Court will be ^[2023]14S.C.R.123:2023INSC958 ^(2008)4SCC615 10 BSB,J CRP No.320 of 2025 precluded to go into that question which has already been decided, or deemed to have been decided by it in the earlier stage. In other words, it will be barred by the principle of res judicata, or at least by the principle of constructive res judicata. The logic here is that an execution proceeding works in different stages and if the judgment debtors have failed to take an objection and have allowed the preliminary stage to come to an end and the matter has moved to the next stage, the judgment debtors cannot raise the objection subsequently, and revert back to an earlier stage of proceeding”. He further placed reliance on the same decision in relation to the scope and ambit of Section 47 of C.P.C. He further submitted that though the execution Court had not stated reasons in detail, the statement that the relief in the petition became infructuous in view of the order in C.M.A No.06 of 2013 itself speaks that the execution Court relied on all the observations in the order in the appeal in C.M.A No.06 of 2013 and so the same does not require any interference. Since the application was filed under section 47 C.P.C., the executability of decree can be questioned, but the petitioners cannot again question the sale on the ground of prior non attachment of the property sold in the execution as it was already raised in the previous petition under Order XXI, rule 90 C.P.C or on the alleged ground of collusion in obtaining the sale certificate as sale itself was also covered therein and there is no ground subsequently arose about it. 14. 11 BSB,J CRP No.320 of 2025 In so far as non-execiitability of the decree creating charge over the property in the present case for want of registration is concerned, though it was not raised in the earlier petition, it was argued before the appellate Court and it was decided. The decision was invited and not challenged so far. 15. All the grounds now raised were dealt with in E.A.No.264 of 2010 and in C.M.A No.06 of 2013. By virtue of the principle of res judicata applicable to proceedings at different stages in the same matter, the petitioners cannot be permitted to re-agitate. 16. 17. The execution Court ought to have passed order with more details. But, in effect, as there is no merit in favour of the revision petitioner, even if the ease is remanded, it would be a futile exercise. 18. As such, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed. Sd/- P. VINOD KUMAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The IV Additional District Judge, Kurnool, Kurnool District. 2. One CC to SRI SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI VARUN BYREDDY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies Pmg Cnr HIGH COURT DATED:10/04/2025 ORDER g 22JUL2025 dj ^ Current Section CRP.No.320 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP