Civil Revision Petition No. 1811 of 2017. Case: Dasari Handra Reddy and Ors. Vs D. Narasimha Reddy and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)
| Case Number | Civil Revision Petition No. 1811 of 2017 |
| Judges | Sanjay Kumar, J. |
| Issue | Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXI Rules 22, 22(1), 22(2), 24; Sections 115, 146, 151, 50(2) |
| Judgement Date | April 28, 2017 |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India) |
Order:
Sanjay Kumar, J.
-
O.S. No. 150 of 1992 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, was decreed on 03.02.1994 perpetually restraining the defendants, their men, agents and persons claiming under them from interfering with the plaintiff's possession over the suit schedule property, an extent of Ac.5-00 guntas in Sy. No. 417/1 and Ac.4-00 guntas in Sy. No. 427 of Bomma Village, Shamirpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District.
-
In the year 2017, the plaintiff sought to execute this decree against the second defendant in the suit and the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant, vide E.P. No. 1 of 2017 filed before the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District. He also moved E.A. No. 1 of 2017 in the said E.P., under Section 146 CPC, for a declaration that respondents 3 to 6 therein were the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant in the suit. On 06.01.2017, the executing Court ordered the said E.A. The plaintiff also filed E.A. No. 2 of 2017 in the said E.P. seeking police protection for himself and the suit schedule property. Notice having been ordered in the said E.A., respondents 3 to 6 therein, being the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant in the suit, entered appearance and filed their counter. They then filed E.A. No. 11 of 2017 in E.A. No. 1 of 2017 in E.P. No. 1 of 2017 under Section 151 CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 06.01.2017 passed in E.A. No. 1 of 2017 so as to decide the same after hearing both parties and after considering the pleas raised by them in their counter. By order dated 21.03.2017, the executing Court dismissed the said E.A. with costs. Be it noted that the order is wrongly shown as having been passed in E.A. No. 11 of 2017 in E.A. No. 2 of 2017 in E.P. No. 1 of 2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners in the said E.A., the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant in the suit/respondents 3 to 6 in the E.P., filed this civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC.
-
Heard Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners/applicants in the subject E.A., and Sri Polavarapu Srinivas, learned counsel on caveat for the first respondent/first respondent in the E.A./the decree holder in O.S. No. 150 of 1992.
-
Sri Bodduluri Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel, would contend that the executing Court ought to have ordered notice to the petitioners in the first instance before ordering E.A. No. 1 of 2017...
To continue reading
Request your trial