Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
Palla Chenchu Harikala – Appellant
Versus
Bysani Satish – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court heard arguments from both parties. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. background facts concerning mortgage disputes. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. executing court's dismissal based on maintainability. (Para 8 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. arguments regarding procedural issues raised. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. principles on scope of review jurisdiction. (Para 22 , 24) |
| 6. review petition accepted; original appeal restored. (Para 58 , 59) |
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri M.R.K. Chakravarthy, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner and Sri C. Subodh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4.
2. The review petitioner is the appellant in A.S.No.59 of 2020.
3. The appeal was filed challenging the Order and Decree dated 09.12.2019 in E.A.No.32 of 2017 in E.P.No.50 of 2013 in O.S.No.98 of 2010, passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nellore. The E.A.No.32 of 2017 filed by the appellant under Order 21 Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) was rejected by the Executing Court.
4. The appeal A.S.No.59 of 2020 was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 05.01.2022, against which the aforesaid review application has been filed.
I. Facts:
5
The appellate court's failure to address pertinent arguments submitted by the reviewing party constituted an error of law warranting the review of the judgment.
Order 21, Rule 58 CPC deals with adjudication of claims or objections with regard to properties attached either directly or indirectly between the parties to the proceedings.
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
The reviewing court had jurisdiction to review the order, and the Petitioner, as a third party being a transferee during the pendency of the civil suit, cannot claim better rights than the defendants....
Review under DRT Rules limited to errors apparent on record; cannot reintroduce omitted grounds or serve as appeal. Res judicata bars successive challenges to sale notice post-auction. Section 14 del....
Misapplication of law in determining property possession constitutes sufficient grounds for modification in review proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure.
(1) Objection to execution of decree – If obstructor admits that he is a transferee pendente lite it is not necessary to determine a question raised by him that he was unaware of litigation when he p....
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
