The validity of a decree and the competency of a party to maintain an application must be determined by a Competent Court, and the scope of interference in proceedings under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited.

ORDER :

The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the Orders dated 15.03.2021 passed in E.A.No.139 of 2011 in E.P.No.193 of 2009 in O.S.No.160 of 2002 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bapatla.

2. Heard Mr. N. Sriram Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. O.Manohar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for Mr. V. Satya Prasad, Advocate, for the 2nd respondent. None appeared on behalf of the 1st respondent.

3. The relevant facts for disposal of the present Civil Revision Petition may briefly be stated as follows:

The petitioner herein is the defendant in the above referred suit. The 1st respondent herein filed the said suit seeking a Decree for Permanent Injunction, restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of Plaint Schedule Property and for mandatory injunction, directing the defendant to remove the constructions made thereon and in default to get the same removed through process of Court. The 2nd respondent herein was added as 2nd plaintiff as per the Orders dated 22.03.2004 in I.A.No.122 of 2004. The said suit was decreed by Judgment dated 08.10.2004, against which, the petitioner/defendant/Judgment Debtor(for short ‘J.Dr’) preferred A.S.No.64 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, and the same was dismissed on 07.04.2009. The petitioner carried the matter by way of further Appeal vide S.A.No.1364 of 2011 and the same was dismissed for default by an Order dated 27.12.2013. Seeking execution of the Decree, the 2nd respondent/Decree Holder (for short ‘D.Hr.’) herein filed the E.P.No.193 of 2009 and the same was allowed by an Order dated 17.06.2010. The Executing Court directed the Court Amin to remove the constructions after giving 15 days time to the petitioner/J.Dr. The Court Amin on 19.07.2010 informed the petitioner/J.Dr., that the warrant as per the Orders of the Court would be executed. However, the petitioner/J.Dr., prevented the Court Amin from executing the warrant. Under the said circumstances, the 2nd respondent herein filed E.A.No.139 of 2011 seeking to prosecute the petitioner/J.Dr., for his willful, deliberate disobedience towards the Court Order and preventing the Court Amin and D.Hr., from executing the warrant and to punish him in accordance with Law. The petitioner/J.Dr., filed counter and resisted the said application. In the said proceedings, the 2nd respondent herein was examined as P.W.1, the mediator was examined as P.W.2, the Court Amin as P.W.3 and Exs.P1 to P4 were marked. The petitioner/J.Dr., was examined as R.W.1 and got marked Ex.R1. The learned Executing Court, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, by an Order dated 15.03.2021, allowed the above said application by committing the petitioner/J.Dr., to Civil Prison for a period of one month for disobedience of the Court Order. Hence, the present Revision Petition.

4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the 1st petitioner/J.Dr., is that after filing the suit, the respondent/1st plaintiff alienated the Suit Schedule Property by a Registered Sale Deed dated 26.07.2002, which came to the knowledge of the petitioner only before filing the present Revision Petition and in view of said transaction, the 1st respondent had no subsisting interest in the suit property. He submits that the D.Hrs., suppressed the said material fact and obtained a Decree by playing fraud on the Court. It is his submission that as the D.Hrs., have no title over the property in question after execution of the Sale Deed and as they played fraud, the Decree itself is a nullity and in-executable. In support of his contention that the Decree and Judgment obtained by fraud is as nullity, the learned counsel had placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in A.V.Papayya Sastry and others v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2007) 4 SCC 221, S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1944) 1 SCC 1 and Judgment in Civil Ap