Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 705 (AP)

Berla Ramesh v. V. B. Markandeya

2008-08-30

L.NARASIMHA REDDY

body2008
ORDER :-The 2nd respondent filed O.S. No.34 of 1998 in the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the 3rd respondent for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed, and after the decree became final, the 2nd respondent filed E.P. No.172 of 2000. An item of immovable property was attached, and thereafter, brought to sale, on 26.8.2002. The 1st respondent emerged as the auction-purchaser, and the sale was confirmed on 7.11.2002. The petitioner, who is a third party to the decree, raised an objection for confirmation of sale. According to him, he too filed a suit, in respect of that very property, for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the 3rd respondent, and that the said suit was decreed. He is said to have filed an E.P., for execution of the sale. It is stated that, at the instance of the/1st respondent herein, the said E.P. was dismissed. 2. The petitioner filed C.R.P. No.6018 of 2002 before this Court against the order dated 7.11.2002. Ultimately, the CRP was dismissed on 26.4.2005. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed E.A. No.264 of 2005, under Rule 95 of Order 21 CPC with a prayer to deliver the schedule property to him. Petitioner opposed the application on several grounds. The Executing Court allowed the E.P., through its order dated 28.7.2008. Hence, this CRP. 3. Sri P. Keshava Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner raised a serious objection, as to the maintainability of the E.A., and canvassed on merits, the Executing Court has virtually given a summary disposal to the E.P. He further contends that there is collusion among the respondents, to defeat the rights of the petitioner. 4. T.S. Anand, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent, who filed caveat, submits that the rights of the petitioner, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property, were crystallized not only with the dismissal of the E.P., filed earlier, but also the dismissal of CRP No.6018 of 2002, in relation to the present E.P. He contends that the petitioner is using all techniques to delay and defeat the execution of the decree. 5. It has already been pointed out that the petitioner is a third party to the decree. 5. It has already been pointed out that the petitioner is a third party to the decree. In case, he has any interest vis-a-vis the suit schedule property, he ought to have worked out his remedies by filing an application under Rule 58 or 99 of Order 21 CPC, depending on the stage of the proceedings. The relevant provisions mandate that the applications filed, invoking them, must be tried as suits. For reasons best known to him, the petitioner did not take any such steps. Admittedly, E.A. No.264 of 2005 is filed under Rule 95 of Order 21 CPC, for delivery of possession. The Rule does not mandate that any detailed adjudication must be undertaken in such applications. 6. Commencing with the attachment of the schedule property upto the stage of delivery of possession, several stages are involved in the execution, such as, proclamation of sale, delivery of possession, removal of obstructions etc. The Executing Court is not supposed to pass detailed orders, at every stage. Further, it is not even a case of obstruction to delivery of possession. The exercise to be undertaken, while dealing with an application, under Rule 95 of Order 21 C.P.C, is mostly, summary in nature. Since the rights of the parties stand crystallized, upto that stage, there would not be any necessity to delve into the matter, in detail. 7. A person, who is not a party to the proceedings, but feels aggrieved by the steps in the execution, can certainly file applications before the Executing Court for necessary relief If he is in possession of the property, that is proposed to be sold, or if he is otherwise sought to be dispossessed, he can file applications under Rule 58 of Order 21 CPC. If he was dispossessed from the property, in the course of execution, he can approach that Court by filing application under Rule 99. The applications filed under these provisions are required to be tried as independent suits. The petitioner did not invoke any of these provisions, and in that view of the matter, there was no necessity for the Executing Court to deal with the matter, as though it is an independent suit. 8. The CRP is accordingly dismissed. The applications filed under these provisions are required to be tried as independent suits. The petitioner did not invoke any of these provisions, and in that view of the matter, there was no necessity for the Executing Court to deal with the matter, as though it is an independent suit. 8. The CRP is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, made clear that, in case the petitioner feels that, he has any right, vis-a-vis the suit schedule property, which is said to have since delivered to the 1st respondent, it shall be open to him to work out his remedies, in accordance with law. 9. There shall be no order as to costs.