IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3740 OF 2019 Petition under Section 115 of CPC, aggrieved by the delivery Order in E.P.No.15 of 2019 in O.S.No. 47 of 2013 dated 26.11.2019, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Court, Parchur, Prakasam, District. Between: 1. Popuri Venkata Rathaiah, S/o Late. Koteswara Rao, Aged about 54 years, Occupation- Cultivation Resident of Door No.5-144/1, Ananthavaram Village, Eddanapudi Mandal, Prakasam District. A.P. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. Popuri Sambrajyam, W/o Late. Venkateswarlu, Aged about 64 Occupation- Under Brothers' Protection, Resident of Door No.7-93 Kolakaluru, Near China Radam Center, Tenali Guntur District. years. ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court pleased to stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.15 of 2019 i may be in f O.S.No.47 of 2013 on the file of Senior Civil Judge Court, ‘Parchur, Pral<;gsam District. If .'-■A gbuifeel for the Petitioner ■A- : SRI. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU '•■■V V Counsel for the Respondents : SRI M CHALAPATI RAO The Court made the following ORDER : APHC010425362019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3740/2019 [3365] Between: ...PETITIONER Popuri Venkata Rathaiah AND ...RESPONDENT Popuri Sambrajyam Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU Counsel for the Respondent 1.MCHALAPATI RAO The Court made the following: 2 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.3740 of 2019 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3740 of 2019 ORDER: 1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the CPC, is filed by the petitioner/ Judgment debtor impugning the order dated 26.11.2019 in E.P.No.15 of 2019 in O.S.No.47 of 2013 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. 2. Heard arguments of Sri K.J.V.N.Pundareekakshudu, the learned counsel for revision petitioner and Sri M.Chalapati Rao, the learned counsel for DHr/respondent. 3. At the outset, the following facts are required to be noticed;- O.S.No.47 of 2013 was a suit filed by Smt. P.Sambrajaym against Sri P.Venkata Rathaiah. The suit was filed before learned Senior Civil Judge, Parchur. Plaint is annexed with a schedule containing item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 immovable properties. The prayer in the suit reads as below; - “The plaintiff prays the Hon'ble court may be pleased to pass a decree and judgment in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant: r . , ■ ^ a) Declaring that the plaintiff is the owner of the plaint schedule properties and for consequential possession, b) Future mesne profits, c) Costs of the suit and d) Pass such other and further orders in the interest ofjustice.’’ . Dr.VRKSJ CRP.No.3740 of 2019 4. Defendant therein filed a written statement and disputed the claim made in the plaint and, prayed for the dismissal of the suit. During the pendency of the suit, it was at the behest of the parties, the trial court referred the matter to Lok Adalath. 17.11.2018 parties arrived at a settlement and filed terms of On compromise with free will and volition. Acting upon that, the Lok Adalath passed the award which reads as below. 1.The defendant agreed to discharge the mortgage loan to PDCC bank Martur and clear off all other liabilities if of or before 28-02-2019 and he agreed to execute Regd. Settlement deed to . , ar? extent of Ac.0.80 cents in Sy-No. 189/2 ofAnanthavaram village out of Ac. 2-04 cents land (Ac. 1.04 cents of item No.1 of the plaint schedule and another Ac. 1-00 cents land of the defendant and in total Ac. 2.04 cents land as single plot) to the plaintiff towards her full and final settlement of her claim in the suit. The said land of Ac.0.80 cents is bounded by East: Remaining land of Defendant, South: Popuri land of the defendant and North: Addanki Nageswara Rao. defendant agreed to pay Rs.8000/-(Rupees Eight Thousand Only) the plaintiff towards full and final settlement of mesne profits and the defendant shall pay the same on or before 28-02-2019. 3 In case, the defendant failed to fulfil the above ^ Stipulated time i.e., on or before 28-02-2019, the plaintiff and defendant plaintiff is an absolute agreed that the ,. owner of the Plaint schedule properties and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the possession of the properties and the defendant agreed to deliver the plaint schedule properties on or before 31-03- 2019 and in default the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.3740 of 2019 plaint schedule properties through possession of the process of law. 4. The plaintiff is entitled mesne profits from the date of suit till the delivery of possession according to law. 5 In case, the defendant will fulfil the above terms no 1 and 2, and the plaintiff herewith given up her remaining claim in the suit and future mesne profits and other maintenance "claims of the plainhff under the decree in O.S.NO.663/2005 DT.12-10-2007 on the P.J.C.J.Court, Tenali and dt.15-03-2010 on the file of P.S.C.J.Court, Tenali. bear their own costs. Plaint Award. Accordingly, Award is 6. The parties agreed to schedule is attached to the passed. ’’ shall be deemed to be decree of Legal Services Authority, 1987 reads An award of Lok Adalath civil court. Section 21 of the 5. as below: zzr™«s refunded in the manner provided under the Court-fees A , award made by a Lok Adatat shail be hnat and binLg on ati the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award i p.Venkata Rathaiah failed to comply Alleging that, JDr/ Sri with clause Nos.1,2 and 3 timelines prescribed therein, the 6. of the Lok Adalath award within the outer limit of which was \ 5 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.3740 of 2019 31.03.2019, the DHr/Smt. P.Sambrajyam filed E.P.No.15 of 2019 on 23.04.2019 with a prayer to deliver possession of decree/ Lok Adalath award schedule mentioned properties consisting of four items of immovable properties. Order 21 Rule 35 CPC reads as below: - 35. Decree for immovable property—(1) Where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whorn it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property. (2) Where a decree is for the Joint possession of immovable property, such possession shall be delivered by affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming by beat of drum, or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree. (3) Where possession of any building on enclosure is to be delivered and the person in possession, being bound by the decree, does not afford free access, the Court, through its officers, may, after giving reasonable warning and facility to any woman not appearing in public according to the customs of the country to withdraw, remove or open any lock or bolt or break open any door or do any other act necessary for putting the decree-holder in possession. JDr/Sri P.Venkata Rathaiah filed his counter. The learned execution court conducted an enquiry during which time, both parties did not adduce any evidence. After considering the material on record and after considering the submissions made on both sides, the executing court passed an order dated 7. 8. 6 Dr.VRKSJ CRP.No.3740 of 2019 26.11.2019 directing for delivery of item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 of decree/ Lok Adalath award schedule properties to DHr/ Smt.P.Samrajyam and put her in possession of those properties. It is the above order which is assailed by JDr/Sri P.Venkata 9. Rathaiah in this revision. 10. The contention that was raised before the court below is the contention that is also raised here. Learned counsel for petitioner/JDr contended that respondent/DHr had no of action to pray for delivery of possession of item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 decree/Lok Adalath award schedule mentioned properties since respondent/ DHr did not serve any notice demanding the revision petitioner/ JDr to register item Nos.1 and 2 of EP schedule properties in her name. Only if there was refusal on part of revision petitioner /JDr to register item 1 and 2 of the properties, it is only then the DHr/respondent was entitled to ask for delivery of item Nos.1 to 4 of the properties. The prayer in the EP suffers from mala tides. No evidence was brought on record by DHr showing any refusal on part of JDr in complying with the Lok Adalath award. In support of his contentions, learned counsel U.N.Krishnamurthy Vs^ revision cause for revision petitioner cited 7 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.3740 of 2019 A.M.Krishnamurthy\ For the above reasons, the learned counsel prays for setting aside the impugned order of the court below. 11. As against that, the learned counsel for respondent/ DHr submits that pursuant to the order of the executing court, item Nos.1 and 2 of the immovable properties were already delivered and the delivery remained unexecuted so far as item Nos.3 and 4 of schedule properties. That the contentions raised by revision petitioner/ JDr are erroneous on facts and law and the ruling cited has no relevance to the case at hand. The learned counsel argued that the impugned order of the execution court was made on 26.11.2019. Earlier this very revision petitioner raised certain objections, and the execution court passed certain orders on 08.07.2019 and 04.09.2019 and challenging them, the revision petitioner/JDr herein preferred C.R.P.No.3635 of 2019 and court by an order dated 26.06.2023 dismissed the revision. In the above backdrop, the learned counsel suggests that JDr/revision petitioner has been squatting on the property unreasonably and raising contentions that have no legal basis and this prays for dismissal of the revision. (2023) 11 see 775 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.3740 of 2019 The following point falls for consideration ■. Whether the impugned order material irregularity requiring 12. suffers from interference? illegality or POINT: - Adalath award attained its the terms incorporated already noticed in the directed JDr to execute a or before It is undisputed that the Lok the award are bound by 13. finality. Parties to in the award. The terms earlier paragraphs registered 28.02.2019 vide clause of DHr on settlement deed in favour NO.1 of the award. It further directed that Rs.8,000/- towards profits to DHr/plaintiff on defendant/JDr to pay before 28.02.2019 vide clause No.2 of the award. or revision petitioner/JDr On facts, it is undisputed that the 14. executed such registered contentions raised in paid that amount of money nor lies the crux of the neither settlement deed. Here this revision. contends that the demanding him to and did not demand counsel for revision petitioner in did not issue any notice settlement deed Learned QHr/respondent herein execute such registered 15. \ ■m 9 \ Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.3740 of 2019 payment of Rs.8,000/- towards profits and in the light of such omission and failure, there was no cause of action for DHr/respondent in praying for delivery of items 1 to 4 of the schedule mentioned properties. This contention is attempted to be supported citing the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in U.N. Krishnamurthy’s case referred earlier. The contention is misconceived and cannot be countenanced for the following reasons. 16: The award of Lok Adalath is culmination of a non adjudicatory process. Parties are persuaded by members of Lok Adalath to arrive at mutual compromise. Lok Adalath award sets out terms of such compromise. Clause Nos.1 and 2 of the award disclosed that this revision petitioner/defendant/JDr had taken upon himself the duty to clear off the loans and execute registered settlement deed in favour of respondent/plaintiff/DHr . He further took upon his shoulders to pay Rs.8,000/- towards settlement of mesne profits. These two clauses have not put any condition on DHr/plaintiff to issue any notices raising a demand against JDr/defendant to comply with the terms of the award. It is undisputed that the revision petitioner/JDr did not issue any notice to DHR calling upon her to know that he had paid and 10 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.3740 of 2019 discharged the debts that are mentioned in clause 1 of the award and asking her to participate and receive a registered settlement deed as mentioned in the award. The contention of the revision petitioner that he met the DHr on several occasions, but she did not cooperate has no legal basis since in such instance, he could very well have moved the execution court in that regard. His utter failure in complying with these terms of the Lok Adalath award is taken by him as basis for him to contend that the burden is on the opposite party and not on him. It seems he believes his default is his strength. In the cited ruling, the case before their Lordships was a suit for specific performance. The concept of readiness and willingness was a matter of immense significance in such suits. In that context, their Lordships had reiterated that the plaintiff/intending purchaser filing a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale is obliged to aver in the plaint and prove by evidence his or her readiness and willingness to perform the obligation to pay money in terms of the contract and would have to make specific averment in that regard in the plaint as well as in his evidence and demonstrate before the court about availability of funds to make the payments in terms of contract within the time 1 prescribed in the contract/ agreement for sale. If the plaintiff in \ 11 Dr.VRKS,J CRP.No.3740 of 2019 \ such cases fails to discharge those obligations, he could not be granted decree of specific performance. This ruling does not advance the cause of revision petitioner for the following reasons. 17. An agreement for sale by their very terms contain mutual obligations on parties to the contract. An award of Lok Adalath is a matter of authority of law and has to be complied with by both parties. In the case at hand, the Lok Adalath award does not cast any obligations on part of DHr/plaintiff to pay money to JDr/revision petitioner. Learned counsel for revision petitioner is unable to show from the terms of the award any obligations cast on respondent/plaintiff/DHr to be fulfilled. Therefore, the contention of JDr/ revision petitioner is negatived. 18. Since clause Nos.1 and 2 of the Lok Adalath were not complied with by the revision petitioner/ JDr the terms of the award in clause Nos.3 to 6 come into operation. Learned court below rightly considered these facts and ordered for delivery of possession of item Nos.1 to 4 of schedule properties. The executing court exercised the jurisdiction vested with it and it did not exceed its jurisdiction, and the order passed is in accordance with the facts and applicable law. The impugned order does not 1 ‘•■3f--yn ^ 12 Dr.VRKSJ CRP.No.3740 of 2019 , a call for interference. There are no merits in this revision. Hence, point is answered against the revision petitioner. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, order 19. dated 26.11.2019 in E.P.No.15 of 2019 in O.S.No.47 of 2013 on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Parchur is confirmed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any. shall stand closed. SD/- M.SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Senior Civil Judge, Parchur, Prakasam District. 2. One CC to SRI. K J V N PUNDAREEKAKSHUDU Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI. M CHALAPATI RAO Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravathi 5. Three CD Copies GPC TAC HIGH COURT DATED:01/05/2025 ORDER CRP.No.3740 of 2019 r 01 AUG 2025 Co Sect! DISMISSING THE CRP