Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1567 (TS)

J. S. R. Durga Prasad v. G. Raghavulu

2025-11-19

SUREPALLI NANDA

body2025
ORDER: SUREPALLI NANDA, J. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Gopala Rao Amancharla V, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, and Sri Anup Kuravadi, learned counsel representing Sri Anup Koushik Kuravadi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on record. 2. Aggrieved by the orders dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner. 3. PERUSED THE RECORD A) The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 passed by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy is extracted hereunder: “10. No doubt, review petition is filed. But by mere filing the review petition itself is not the ground for not proceeding with this E.P which is filed on obtaining the judgment and decree on contest and attained finality. Mere filing of the review application is not a bar for execution court to proceed with the matter as held in V. Vengamalai Gounder (deceased) by L.Rs and others v. K. Perumal Gounder LNI ND 2011 MAD 4181 . The decree holders in whose favour the decree was passed should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the judgment and decree. All the issues raised by the judgment debtor herein are not considerable in this E.P proceedings. 11. As the judgment and decree is passed in favour of the decree holders and against the judgment debtor, the judgment debtor didn't pay any amount subsequent to the passing of the decree which has obtained finality having not preferred any appeal and as no denial with regard to the schedule property as belongs to him, this court is of the view that the decree holder is entitled for execution of the E.P by attaching the schedule property on payment of process. 12. In the result, the E.P is allowed and ordered for attachment of the E.P schedule immovable property on payment of process. No order as to costs. Call on 26.11.2025. 12. In the result, the E.P is allowed and ordered for attachment of the E.P schedule immovable property on payment of process. No order as to costs. Call on 26.11.2025. For process by 17.11.2025.” B) The petitioner filed the review petition i.e., I .A.No.2660 of 2024 in O.S. No.175 of 2017 before the trial Court challenging the decree dated 01.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2017 seeking prayer as under: “to review the judgment and decree dated 01.08.2024 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 by setting aside the judgment and decree and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: 4. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the trial Court failed to observe that the review petition I.A.No.2660 of 2024 in O.S. No.175 of 2017 had been filed by the petitioner herein challenging the decree dated 01.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2017 on legal grounds such as jurisdiction, limitation, non-joinder of parties, absence of witnesses, and the validity of the promissory notes when no consideration had been passed on and the same are sufficient grounds for adjudication in review. However, though there were valid grounds for adjudication of the review, the trial Court, without examining the same on merits, proceeded finally and passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy. 5. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in the interest of justice, it is just and necessary to set aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, contends that mere filing of a review application by the petitioner cannot be a ground for the trial Court not to proceed and pass orders in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017, in view of the fact that though the review had been filed in the year 2024 no stay had been granted by the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy. 7. 7. This Court opines that the said plea put forth by the respondents is no doubt true but this Court takes note of the fact as borne on record that the application I.A.No.2660 of 2024 filed by the petitioner seeking review of the order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 had been pending consideration before the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, as on 14.11.2025 and even as on date, and since the said application had not been adjudicated on its merits, execution of the E.P. at this stage would render the very filing of the review petition by the petitioner herein as infructuous. Therefore, this Court opines that in the interest of Justice the I.A.No.2660 of 2024 filed by the petitioner in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 needs to be adjudicated finally on merits in accordance to law. 8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by the learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, directing the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, to dispose of the review application, I .A. No. 2660 of 2024 in accordance to law on merits and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I t is specifically observed that both parties shall cooperate and ensure the final disposal of the review application, I .A. No. 2660 of 2024 on merits, within the said period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017 on the file of Principal District Judge, Sangareddy, for a period of three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, till the above exercise as indicated as above within the time period as stipulated as above is initiated and concluded. However, there shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.