Back
2015 Supreme(AP) 525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD
NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J.
Ch. Mahender - Appellant
Versus
D. Venkat Reddy & Others - Respondents
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 421 of 2015 & Civil Revision Petition No. 1346 of 2015
Decided on : 21-08-2015
Act Referred
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT : S.10
LIMITATION ACT : S.4
Headnote
General Clauses Act, 1897 – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 4 – Rules 64 and 66 – Civil Miscellaneous Appeal – Decree - Appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which is preferred aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge - Nos.1 and 2 herein are the Decree Holders whose suit had been decreed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court same J.Dr.No.1 preferred the Civil Revision Petition against the orders passed in E.P.No.207 of 2014 suit O.S.No.623 of 2012 was instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,58,650/- together with interest at 2.5% per month suit was decreed directing the two defendants therein to pay, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.9,58,650/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and for the subsequent period the rate of interest was fixed at 6% per annum till realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,60,000/-. For executing this decree was filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. It is also appropriate to notice that during the pendency of the civil suit, immovable property of the appellant herein - a flat located at - was attached prior to the judgment as per the orders passed in I.A.No.1086 of 2012 It is that immovable property which was brought to sale by the executing Court. It is to set aside said sale that took place filed petition EA (SR).No.6238 of 2015 –Held, Civil Revision Petition is preferred against the order passed by the Executing Court in is filed Order XXI CPC raised an objection about the maintainability of the Execution Petition on the ground that the decree was passed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and without transferring the same, no execution petition can be filed directly before the Court at District. As was noticed supra objection was rejected as the assertion was factually incorrect decree was in fact transferred by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge City Civil Court, District and received in the District Court, Reddy whereas the Execution Petition was filed next objection raised by the was that he preferred an appeal in and the same is pending. Except mentioning that an appeal was preferred could not furnish either the regular number assigned to such an appeal or as to the fate of any stay application moved. Executing Court found no impediment in proceeding with the execution of the decree. Since both the objections by against the maintainability of the Execution Petition are without any merit, rightly. Executing Court has passed orders rejecting the objections of the directing to file the estimated value of the attached immovable property for proclamation of sale thereof to be drawn – Revision either and hence it also deserves to be dismissed.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant: P. Venugopala Rao, Yallabandi Ramatirtha
For the Respondents: K. Harihar Babu, Vijaykumar Sunnapu
Both these cases arise out of the same execution proceedings between the same parties and hence are heard together.
The Judgment Debtor No.1 (J.Dr.) is the appellant in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, which is preferred aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District on 02.06.2015 in EA(SR).No.6238 of 2015 in E.P.No.207 of 2014. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein are the Decree Holders (D.Hrs.), whose suit O.S.No.623 of 2012 had been decreed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 22.08.2014.
The same J.Dr.No.1 preferred the Civil Revision Petition against the orders passed on 10.02.2015 in E.P.No.207 of 2014.
The suit O.S.No.623 of 2012 was instituted for recovery of a sum of Rs.9,58,650/- together with interest at 2.5% per month. That suit was decreed on 22.08.2014 directing the two defendants therein to pay, jointly and severally, a sum of Rs.9,58,650/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and for the subsequent period the rate of interest was fixed at 6% per annum till realization on the principal amount of Rs.6,60,000/-. For executing this decree dated 22.08.2014, E.P.No.207 of 2014 was filed on 20.10.2014 before the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar. It is also appropriate to notice that during the pendency of the civil suit, immovable property of the appellant herein - a flat located at Saroornagar, Hyderabad - was attached prior to the judgment as per the orders passed in I.A.No.1086 of 2012 on 03.10.2013. It is that immovable property, which was brought to sale on 02.04.2015 by the executing Court. It is to set aside the said sale that took place on 02.04.2015, the J.Dr. filed petition EA(SR).No.6238 of 2015.
Three objections have been raised mainly in support of the plea that the sale that was conducted on 02.04.2015 is vitiated and consequently it has to be set aside. The 1st objection is that upset price has been fixed at Rs.13,20,000/- for 880 Sq.Feet flat at Saroornagar, Hyderabad wholly based upon the valuation certificate issued by the Sub-Registrar’s office, instead of ascertaining its market value in the locality. It is the claim of the J.Dr. that the market value of the flat is anywhere between Rs.22,00,000/- to Rs.25,00,000/-. The next objection was that the Execution Petition has been directly filed before the Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court at Ranga Reddy District without the decree passed by the XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad being transferred and finally it was urged that the sale by way of public auction took place on 02.04.2015, whereas the auction purchaser has deposited the 1/4th of the bid amount not immediately but on 04.04.2015 and hence the sale is liable to be set aside and the property is liable to be resold.
In so far as the objection relating to filing the Execution Petition directly before the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District is concerned, all I need to notice is the details that are furnished clearly in the order pronounced by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy on 10.02.2015, which is the subject matter of consideration in C.R.P.No.1346 of 2015. It is recorded therein that the learned XVII Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad decreed the suit on 22.08.2014 and thereafter the D.Hr. got the said decree transferred under Order 21 Rules 5 and 6 CPC and the decree so, transferred was received by the District Court, Ranga Reddy District on 18.10.2014 (inward number 12694/2014 dated 18.10.2014). Thereafter, the said decree was transmitted to the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Thereafter, the D.Hrs. filed E.P.No.207 of 2014 on 20.10.2014. In this view of the matter, the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant that the decree has not been transferred from the City C
