An order passed under Section 144 of CPC is a decree and therefore an appeal lies against it under Section 96 of CPC. A revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable as an alternative remedy by way of appeal is available.

ORDER :

The present Revision Petition has been preferred against an Order dated 13.10.2020 in E.A.No.2 of 2018 in E.P.No.75 of 2015 in O.S.No.220 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, Prakasam District.

2. Heard Mr. Sita Ram Chaparla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Naga Praveen Vankayalapati, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. The petitioner herein is the decree holder in O.S.No.220 of 2016. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the said suit seeking a decree for delivery of possession of the suit schedule properties. The said suit was decreed on 12.03.2015 against the respondent and other defendants. The petitioner/plaintiff filed E.P.No.75 of 2015 seeking delivery of items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties and the same was allowed. Pursuant to which, items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties were delivered to the petitioner/decree holder on 22.06.2015 and 21.06.2018 respectively. In the meanwhile, the respondent/J.Dr.No.7 filed an application seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 12.03.2015 and the same was allowed on 09.06.2017. Thereafter, he filed E.A.No.2 of 2018 under Sections 144 and 151 of Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”) seeking to re-deliver possession of items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties to him. The said E.A was opposed by the petitioner/decree holder by filing a counter. The Court below after considering the matter by an Order dated 13.10.2020 allowed the said application with a direction to the petitioner/decree holder to re-deliver possession of items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule properties to the petitioner/J.Dr.No.7 within 6 months from the date of the Order, failing which the respondent/J.Dr.No.7 is granted liberty to get delivery the same through process of Law. Aggrieved by the said Order, the present Revision Petition was preferred by the petitioner/decree holder on various grounds.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia strenuously contended that the Order under Revision is not sustainable, as the Court below failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in a proper perspective. He submits that the respondent is guilty of suppression of facts and on that ground the application filed by him is liable to be dismissed. In elaboration, he submits that the respondent/J.Dr.No.7 filed O.S.No.99 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Family-cum-VIII Additional District Judge at Ongole against the petitioner as well as his vendors seeking declaration and consequential possession of the properties and the Court below grievously erred in not considering the detailed counter filed by the petitioner/decree holder in E.A, wherein these aspects averred that the property in question was sold to third parties and filing of the suit by the respondent/J.Dr.No.7 for declaration and recovery of possession by the respondent were set out. He submits that the petitioner sold the suit schedule properties through Registered Sale Deeds dated 06.10.2016 and 30.05.2017 and thereafter the application to set aside the ex-parte decree was allowed on 09.06.2017. He submits that since the petitioner/decree holder had already sold the suit schedule property to third parties and is not in possession of the schedule properties, the impugned Order is not sustainable against the petitioner/decree holder. He submits that the Court below grossly erred in allowing the application without looking into the crucial aspects and went wrong in allowing the application without considering the matter in a proper perspective. He submits that the petitioner had approached the Honourable Court with unclean hands as such the Court below ought to have rejected the application at the threshold. He further submits that no party shall suffer by the acts of the Court and as the respondent herein obtained the impugned Order by playing fraud on the petitioner as well as on the Honourable Court, the Order in E.A.No.2 of 2018 is not sustainable in Law.