Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
M. SEETHARAMA MURTI, J.
Dr. Talluri Satish Chandra - Petitioner
Versus
Thoram Venkateswara Rao & Others - Respondents
Civil Revision Petition No. 2030 of 2016
Decided On : 05-01-2017
Criminal Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115, 39(2) and 39 - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 406, 420 and 506 - Court Fees Act, 1870 - sub-section (1) of section 20 - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 21 - Petition by the Decree Holder under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the Code) is directed against the order, dated of the learned II Additional District Judge Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, passed in E.P in Case filed by the Decree Holder under Order XXI Rule of the Code against the judgment debtors 1 to 3/respondents 1 to 3 herein to direct them to execute and register the sale deed in respect of decree A schedule property in favour of the Decree Holder and requesting the executing Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the Decree Holder on failure of the judgment debtors to comply with the Courts directions - Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/Decree Holder and - Learned senior counsel representing learned counsel appearing for the respondents/judgment debtors - I have perused the material record - Parties arriving at an amicable settlement an Award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act was passed by the Bench of Metropolitan Criminal Courts - Both the parties and all the members of the Bench including the Judicial Member duly signed the Award. To the Award, the MOU with the terms of settlement executed between the parties on at was enclosed. Having thus obtained the Award, the filed before the Principal District Court Reddy District vide And on the said EP was made over to the II Additional District Court Reddy District and was assigned the number EP was filed against the to direct them to execute and register the sale deed in respect of decree A schedule property in favour of the Decree Holder EP was filed in the said Court as the A schedule property is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the said Court. On receiving notices, the judgment debtors entered appearance and contended that the executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petition filed for execution of the Award - observed that the award is related to a criminal case/CC originally on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate and that the Decree Holder is a resident of Vijayawada and that except the judgment debtors 2 and 3, the others are residents - Held, Petition ought to have been filed before the competent civil Court within the City Civil Court Unit of Hyderabad District. However since the A schedule immovable property is situated outside the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Courts within City Civil Court Unit and as the said property is situate within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the Civil Court Reddy District the Decree Holder ought to have filed an appropriate application before the competent Civil Court within the City Civil Court Unit of Hyderabad District seeking transfer of the decree to a competent civil Court within Reddy District - execution petition before a competent Civil Court of the City Civil Court Unit of the Hyderabad District and ought to have sought transfer of the decree to the competent Civil Court of Reddy District as the A schedule property is situated within the local limits of the District Court at Reddy District - Be that as it may, as the Execution proceedings are already instituted in the competent Executing Court at Reddy District this Court while exercising its suo motu powers of transfer and the supervisory jurisdiction deems it appropriate to permit the DHr to continue to proceed with the execution proceedings in the said Executing Court instead of driving the Decree Holder from pillar to post - accordance with the procedure established by law, however, uninfluenced by the observations in the order which is now set aside nevertheless after giving a reasonable and fair opportunity to both the sides to advance their respective contentions which the law permits - Ordered Accordingly.
1. This Civil Revision Petition by the Decree Holder under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (the Code) is directed against the order, dated 11.02.2016, of the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B. Nagar, passed in E.P.No.234 of 2015 in Lok Adalat Case No.1127/2013 filed by the Decree Holder under Order XXI Rule 34 of the Code against the judgment debtors 1 to 3/respondents 1 to 3 herein to direct them to execute and register the sale deed in respect of decree A schedule property in favour of the Decree Holder and requesting the executing Court to execute the sale deed in favour of the Decree Holder on failure of the judgment debtors to comply with the Courts directions.
2. I have heard the submissions of Sri K.V. Bhanu Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/Decree Holder (herein after DHr) and Sri Vedula Venkata Ramana, learned senior counsel representing Sri Y. Ashok Raj, learned counsel appearing for the respondents/judgment debtors 1 to 3 (hereinafter, JDrs). I have perused the material record.
3. The facts, which are necessary to be stated as a prelude to this order, in brief, are as follows:
On the first information lodged by the DHr, a case in Crime No.173 of 2013 was registered by the Police Station, Technical Team, the Central Crime Station, Hyderabad. Pursuant thereto, a Calendar Case (hereinafter, CC) was taken on file by the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. At the request of the parties, the said CC was referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement in the presence of the informant and the accused. On such reference made to the Lok Adalat of Metropolitan Lok Adalat Bench, Hyderabad, and on the parties arriving at an amicable settlement, an Award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, (the Act, for brevity) was passed by the Lok Adalat Bench of Metropolitan Criminal Courts, Hyderabad. Both the parties and all the members of the Bench including the Judicial Member duly signed the Award. To the Award, the MOU, with the terms of settlement executed between the parties on 05.12.2013 at Hyderabad, was enclosed. Having thus obtained the Award, the DHr filed E.P.No.234 of 2015 before the Principal District Court, Ranga Reddy District, vide SR No.3353 of 2015. And, on 06.04.2015, the said EP was made over to the II Additional District Court, Ranga Reddy District, and was assigned the number E.P.No.234 of 2015. The said EP was filed against the JDrs 1 to 3 to direct them to execute and register the sale deed in respect of decree A schedule property in favour of the Decree Holder. The EP was filed in the said Court as the A schedule property is situated within the local limits of the jurisdiction of the said Court. On receiving notices, the judgment debtors entered appearance and contended that the executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Execution Petition filed for execution of the Lok Adalat Award.
4. On merits and by the orders impugned, the learned II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy, having observed that the award is related to a criminal case/CC originally on the file of the XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, and that the Decree Holder is a resident of Vijayawada and that except the judgment debtors 2 and 3, the others are residents of Bhimavaram of West Godavari District and that even the third judgment debtor is not residing within the limits of Hyderabad city, held that the Decree Holder used the Lok Adalat mechanism as a tool and is intending to execute the award illegally and contrary to the provisions of the Act, and therefore, dismissed the execution petition.
5. Aggrieved thereby, the Decree Holder filed this revision petition.
6. The learned counsel for the Decree Holder would submit as follows:
The award of a Lok Adalat is an Award whether passed by the Lok Ad
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
