APHC010161062023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY,THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2157/2024 Between: 1. SRIKAKOLAPU VENKATA SUBRAHMANYA, SRINIVASA MURTHY, S/O. VENKANNA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, LAND OWNER, KOTHAPET, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. SRIKAKOLAPU NARASIMHA MURTHY, (DIED) 2. PASUMARTHI NAGAVENI, W/O. VENKATESWARA RAO AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS. LAND LADY, CHELLURU RAMACHANDRAPURAM, 3. KOTHA SEETA MAHALAKSHMI, W/O. SUBBA RAO 52 YEARS. LAND LADY, KULLA, RAMACHANDRAPURAM, 4. SRIKAKOLAPU SURYAKANTHAM, (DIED) 5. SRIKAKOLAPU RAMA MOHANARAO, S/O. VENKANNA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, LAND OWNER, VADAPALEM, KOTHAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. SRIKAKOLAPU VISWESWARA SRINIVAS, S/O. NARSIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 35YEARS, 2 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2157 OF 2024 BUSINESS, R/O. D.NO.16-101, OLD SBL COLONY, KOTHAPETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KOTHAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT 7. KOTHA VENKATA NAGA SURYA LAKSHMI, W/O. SAI BALARAMA SWAMY, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. R/O. D.NO. 8-108/1, POTTISRIRAMULU STREET, KOTHAPETA VILLAGE AND MANDAL, KOTHAPETA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. S MANIKYAVALLI, W/O. VADDADI KISHORE, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. D.NO. 69, B 2ND X STREET, ELIM NAGAR, PERUNGUDI, KANCHIPURM DISTRICT. TAMILNADU STATE. 9. SRIKAKOLLAPU VENKATA NAGA PADMA, W/O. POPPULA NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS. EMPLOYEE, R/O. D.NO. 4-22-66/D, 4TH LINE, MYTYALAREDDY NAGAR, AMARAVATI ROAD, GUNTUR, GUNTUR DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 tomay be pleased to allow the revision by setting-aside the Orders dt.31-12- 2022, passed in E.P. No. 5 of 2018 in O.S. No. 11 of 1985 of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, thereby allowing the E.P. No. 5 of 2018, by calling for the records of the O.S. No. 11 of 1985 and grant IA 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 may be pleased to Condone the Delay of 525 days in Re-submitting the Revision 3 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2157 OF 2024 against the Order dated 31-12-2022 passed in E.P. No. 5 of 2018 in O.S. No. 11 of 1985 of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, and pass IA NO: 2 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 may be pleased to Grant Interim Orders of Stay directing Respondents not to withdraw any part of the amount lying to the credit of the suit account in O.S.No.l 1 of 1985 of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAJESH BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. 2. V V SATISH The Court made the following: 4 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2157 OF 2024 ORDER The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the DHR No.2/defendant No.2 against the orders dated 31.12.2022 in E.P.NO.5 of 2018 in O.S.No.11 of 1985 on the file of Learned Senior Civil Kudge, Kothapeta, wherein the Court has dismissed the E.P.No.5 of 2018 filed by the plaintiffs on the ground that the E.P. is barred by limitation. 2. The revision petitioner herein is the Decree Holder No.2/2nd defendant and respondents 1 to 4 herein are judgment debtors/ defendants 1, 3 to 5, the 5th respondent herein is the plaintiff and the other respondents herein are the judgment debtors 6 to 9. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for partition of joint family properties. The said suit was decreed allotting 7/24th share to the plaintiff and the 1st defendant each and 1/24th share to the defendants 3 to 5 each and the properties were in the possession of the 1st defendant/judgment debtor No.1. The Plaintiff filed I.A.No.472 of 2002 for grant of mesne profits to him and the same was allowed on 28.04.2003 by 5 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2157 OF 2024 granting decree for an amount of Rs.3,53,135.70Ps towards mesne profits from 22.04.1983 to 13.07.2000. The 1st judgment debtor preferred appeal A.S.No.1852 of 2004 against the said orders and the same is still pending consideration. The 2nd decree holder filed E.P.No.5 of 2018 in O.S.No.11 of 1985 under Order XXI Rule 52 CPC, seeking attachment of the amounts lying on the credit of the suit in O.S.No.11 of 1985 to an extent of Rs.37,26,202/- payable to the 1st judgment debtor. The court below, after elaborate discussion on the filing of the execution petition, dismissed the E.P. on the ground of bar of limitation. Challenging the same, the present C.R.P. came to be filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. When the said C.R.P came up for admission on 03.10.2024, this court passed the interim order which reads as under:- <Considering the submissions made and in view of the specific averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the civil revision petition there shall be an interim direction as prayed for a period of eight (08) weeks.= 6 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2157 OF 2024 The said interim order is extended from time to time. 4. Heard Mr.P.Rajesh Babu, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.V.Satish, the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the Court below has not at all followed the provision of Article 136 of Limitation Act, in a proper way and dismissed the E.P. on a wrong ground and the Court erroneously made observation that though appeal in A.S.No.1852 of 2004 is pending before this Court and since there is no stay, limitation counts from the date of decree and that therefore E.P.is barred by limitation. 6. On perusal of the impugned orders passed in E.P.No.5 of 2018, it can be seen that the Court below duly referring to a judgment of the Posani Rama Chandraiah vs. DaggupatiSeshamma1 has held as under:- <When the legislature enacted Art.136 by omitting S.48.C.P.C and reproducing it Art.136, we have to take it that they must have been aware of the interpretation of S.46 by the Courts and approved of it. Consequently, we hold that under Art.136 of the present limitation Act, the period of limitation can be reckoned from the date 1AIR 1978 AP 342 7 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2157 OF 2024 of the appellate decree, even though there was not stay in appeal. If there is an appeal, the decree that can be enforced is that of the appellate Court, and the period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date of that decree. 7. Admittedly, in the present case, I.A.No.472 of 2002 was filed by decree holder for grant of mesne profits and the same was allowed on 28.04.2003 by granting decree and the Execution Petition was filed on 29.12.2017, after more than 14 years from the date of enforcement of decree. As the appeal filed against the said order is still pending, the decree passed by the trial Court is in existence on the date of filing the Execution Petition. The relevant Article for filing of the E.P. is Article 136, which reads as follows: <Article 136 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act prescribes that the period of limitation for execution of any decree or order of a <civil court= is 12 years from the date on which such decree or order becomes enforceable.= 8. In the present case, the E.P. was filed after more than 14 years from the date of enforcement of decree. Further, since no interim stay was ordered in the appeal filed against the order passed in I.A.No.472 of 2002 and as it was not disposed of, the 8 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2157 OF 2024 date for enforcement is to be reckoned from the decree passed by the trial Court i.e. 28.04.2003, as such the present E.P. is barred by limitation. 9. Learned Counsel for the revision petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in <M/s. Gojer Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd., Vs. Shri Ratan Lal Singh2=, wherein the Supreme Court held that <the decree of the trial Court will be merged with the appellate court decree and that the limitation starts from the date of the appellate Court decree.= 10. The law laid down in the said decision is not in dispute, but the same would not be helpful to the revision petitioner to prove his contention as the appeal is still pending and the decree was passed on 28.04.2003 and the E.P. was filed on 29.12.2017 i.e. after more than 14 years. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not filed any document to show that the appeal filed against the order passed in I.A.No.472 of 2002, which was filed for grant of mesne profits, was disposed of. If there is an appellate decree, the time to enforce will be started from the date of said appellate decree. 2 (1974) 2 SCC 453 9 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2157 OF 2024 Therefore, the doctrine of merger is not applicable in the present case. The decision relied on by the petitioner does not indicate that mere filing of the appeal would save the limitation for filing of Execution Petition before disposal of appeal. As such, it cannot be said that the E.P. is within the time. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Court below did not commit any error warranting interference of this Court in the order dated 31.12.2022 passed in E.P.No.5 of 2018 in O.S.No.11 of 1985 and the revision is devoid of merits, consequently, the revision is liable to be dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:16.10.2025 LSP 10 VS,J C.R.P.NO.2157 OF 2024 240 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2157/2024 Date:16.10.2025 LSP