IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT I HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.392 of 2025 Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C, aggrieved by the Order dated 29.01.2025 passed in E.P. No. 29 of 2016 in O.S.No.102 of 2001. on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. Between: 1. Kuna Gaddemma, W/o. late Anandha Rao, Aged about 85 years, R/o. Kothavalasa Village, AmadalaviliilVIandal, Srikakulam District. 2. Kuna paparao, S/o. late Anandhf Rao, aged about 57 years, R/o. Kothavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3. Kuna Murali, S/o. late Anandh Rao, aged about 52 Kothavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. years, R/o. >.. ...Petitioners AND 1; Boddepalli Ramanna, (died) 2. Boddepalli Govindamma, W/o. late Ramana, Aged about 75 years, R/o. Kothavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. 3. Boddepalli Venkataramana, S/ot late Ramana, Aged about 58 years, R/o. Kothavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal. Srikakulam District. r 4. Boddepalli Paparao, S/o. late Ramana, Aged about 55 years, R/o. Kothavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. 5. Gurugubeli Parvathi, W/o. Vekataramana, aged about 50 years, ; Cbeemalavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. 6. Boddepalli Krishna, S/o. late Ramana, Aged about 48 years, Cheemalavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District 7. Gurugubeli Eswaramma, W/o. Narsinga Rao, aged about 50 years, R/o. Waltaru, Santhakaviti Mandal, Srikakulam District. 8. Boddepalli Appalanaidu, S/o. late Ramana, Aged about 40 years, R/o. Kothavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. 9. Boddepalli Suryanarayana, S/o. late Ramana, Aged about 38 years, Cheemalavalasa Village, Amadalavalasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. ...Respondents 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 stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.21 of'2016 in O.S.No.102 of 2001, dated 29.01.2025 on the file of Junior Civil 'Judge at Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District. Counsel for the Petitioners : Sri Krishna Rao M Counsel for the Respondents: None Appeared The Court made the following: s ^ -ts ---- APHC010076362025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3331] WEDNESDAY.THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBBA REDDY SATTI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 392/2025 Between: Kuna Gaddemma and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Boddepalli Ramanna and Others Counsel for the Petitioner(S): ...RESPONDENT(S) 1. KRISHNA RAO M Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1. The Court made the following ORDER: Heard Sri M.Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioners. 2. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.01.2025 in E.P.No.29 of 2016 in O.S.No.102 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa, Srikakulam District, the above civil revision petition is filed. 3. The deceased 1®* respondent herein, filed the suit O.S.No.102 of 2001 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Amadalavalasa against the petitioners herein to declare that the defendants have no right to encroach ABCD marked portion shown in the plaint plan and that the defendants have no right to leave the sullage water and bad water through the hole shown as EF marked portion * in the plaint plan towards pathway, for grant of mandatory injunction directing 2 encroachment from ABCD marked portion in the hole at EF marked portion in the plaint plan, for the defendants to remove the plaint plan, and to close the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their constructing any type of projection in ABCD men and agents, from ever marked plaint plan, and to restrain the defendants, their men and agents from manner towards the path leaving sullage water or any bad water in any ever way and for costs of the suit. 17.03.2008. The decree in The suit was decreed partly on contest on the suit reads as follows; 4. i) that it is hereby ordered that the defendants are at liberty to leave the water through the hole as shown in the “EF” marked plaint plan by inserting pipe as that of the plaintiff without causing any inconvenience to others; and ii) that it is hereby declared that the defendants have no right to encroach the ABCD marked portion as shown in the plaint plan, and iii) that the mandatory injunction is granted in favour of P[™W a"d directing the defendants to remove the encroachment from ABCD marked portion as shown in the plaint plan; and iv) that the permanent injunction is granted against the defendants restraining the defendants, their men and agents from ever constructing any type of projections in ABCD marked plaint plan; and v) that each party shall bear their own costs. favour of plaintiff and respondent filed appeal A.S.No.56 of 2008 on the file & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Srikakulam St The deceased 1 of II Additional District against the order dated 17.03.2008 in O.S.No.102 of 2001. 5. 18.01.2012 and granted a 0 jhe Appellate court allowed the appeal on mandatory injunction directing between points EF in the plaint plan within 2 months from the date of the decree, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to get said hole closed through the process of law. ^ 7. The decree of the appellate court reads as follows; the defendants to close the hole shown // // / 3 i) that the appeal be and the judgement and decree of Lower Court granting mandatory injunction, ii) That the respondents-defendants be and are hereby directed to close the hole shown between points EF in the plaint plan within 2 months from the date of decree if pipe line is not laid as per the liberty granted by the decree of the Lower Court by then, failing which plaintiff is at liberty to get said hole closed through process of law. is hereby allowed by modifying same Thereafter, the legal representatives of the sole plaintiff filed E.P.No.29 of 2016 under Order XXI, Rule 35 of CPC to close the EF hole and the ABCD encroachment shown in the plaint plan as per the decree. The judgment debtors filed a counter-affidavit and would contend that against the judgment and decree, a second appeal was filed and the same is pending consideration. By the order under revision, the trial court allowed the E.P. 8. remove 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the EP was filed after two years of the decree. No notice was served on the judgment debtor mandated under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC. Learned counsel would also contend that the executing court failed to consider the decree from a perspective. 10. as proper 11. The point for consideration is: Whether the order dated 29.01.2025 in E.P.No.29/2016 in O.S.No.102/2001 suffers from any illegality? As seen from the decree in O.S.No.102 of 2001, the trial court declared that the defendants have no right to encroach ABCD marked portion as shown in the plaint plan. The trial court also granted a mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiff, directing the defendants to remove the encroachment from the ABCD marked portion as shown in the plaint plan. The trial court also granted i? a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants. 12. 4 their men and agents from ever constructing any type of projections in the ABCD marked plaint plan. In respect of EFO, the trial court ordered that the defendants are at liberty to leave the sullage water through the hole shown the EF marked portion as shown in the plaint plan by inserting a pipe without causing any inconvenience to others. as 13. The appeal filed by the plaintiff, in so far as the relief negatived, against the judgment and decree dated 17.03.2008 in O.S.No.102/2001 was allowed on 18.01.2012. The Appellate court granted a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to close the hole shown as EF in the plaint plan within two months from the date of the decree, if pipeline is not laid as per the liberty granted by the decree of the lower court. The Appellate court further observed that the plaintiff is at liberty to get the hole closed through the process of law. In the execution petition, it was pleaded that despite several requests made by the decree holders to the judgment debtor to lay a pipeline as per the liberty granted by the decree by the lower portion, the judgment debtor failed to obey the directions of the and the Appellate Court. 14. court or else close the EF-marked lower court 15. In the counter-affidavit filed by the judgment debtor, it was pleaded about the filing of a second appeal alone. In I.A.No.1 /2017 (SAMP 2554/2017) in S.A.No.1255 of 2017 filed by the judgment debtors, the order reads as follows: 16. Thus, except giving out bald statements, the affidavit does not indicate any explanation about the cause of delay. The petition having been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, though the Courts are always liberal to over looked that the cause which must appear reasonable and satisfactory to judicial mind. Since the petitioners failed to disclose any satisfactory cause, no case is made out to condone this large number of 2004 days delay. condone the delays, the mandate of the law cannot be parties are obliged to indicate the ^ In the result, this petition is dismissed. f . // 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the hearing, would submit that further appeal is filed against the order dated 01.02.2022 in I.A.No.1 of 2017 in S.A.No.1255/2017. Thus, as seen from the material, the judgment debtor failed to adhere to the decree in the suit as well as in the appeal. The sole ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no notice was served in E.P at the Rule 22 stage since the E.P was filed beyond two years. 17. no 18. 19. Order XXI Rule 22 CPC envisages notice to show cause against execution in certain cases. Sub-Rule 1 of the Order XXI Rule 22 envisages notice if an execution filed beyond two years after the decree while Sub-Rule 2 of Order XXI Rule 22 prescribes dispensing with notice by recording reasons. 20. Order XXI Rule 22 (2) CPC, which is relevant, is extracted hereunder: “Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, if. for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice.” The amendment of the above Rule reads as follows: To sub-rule(2) add the following proviso: “Provided that no order for execution of a decree shall be invalid owing to the omission of the Court to record its reason unless the judgment- debtor has sustained substantial injury as the result of such omission.” 21. Thus, a plain reading of the Rule extracted, (amendment), would indicate that no order vis-a-vis execution of the decree is invalid due to the omission of court recording reasons unless the J.Dr sustained substantial injury. Thus, the judgment debtor must plead and prove substantial injury due .1 - 6 to non-service of notice i decree. in an execution petition filed two years after the 22. In the case at hand, the first Appellate 18.01.2012 filed by the plaintiff against the judgment dated 17.03 2008 E P was filed in the year 2016. In fact, in the E.P., the judgment debtor filed a counter and contested the judgment debtors , order was passed. The words “substantial injury" in Order XXI Rule 22(2) CPC gams s,gniflcance. The judgment debtor failed to demonstrate any substantial injury due to non-service of notice at the Rule 22 stage. The decree holder filed E.P. and decree of the lower I considered all the aspects and i court doesn’t suffer from any illegality. court allowed the appeal on execution petition. It is not the case that the are not aware of the filing of the execution petition, and an 23. to execute the decree as per the Judgment Executing execution court, modified by the appellate court. The passed the order. The order of the 24. Given the facts and circumstances of the Court considered all the case, since the Executing aspects and passed the order, this Court does not find any irregulanfies or illegalities in the order. Hence, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 25. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs, petitions, if any, shall stand closed. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous Sd/- M SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUEpOPY// H SECTION OFFICER I To 1. The Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amadalavalasa, 2. One CC to Sri Krishna Rao M, Advocate 3. Three CD Copies Srikakulam District. [OPUC] TK 5.^ ] . \ ■\ HIGH COURT \ DATED:26/03/2025 ORDER CRP.No.392 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP i