Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
RAVI NATH TILHARI
Pilla Venkateswara Rao Alias Allabakshu – Appellant
Versus
Kancherla Malyadri – Respondent
ORDER :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
On the request made citing urgency by the learned counsel for the petitioner, lunch motion was granted.
2. The matter is taken up as lunch motion, listed in Lunch motion list.
3. Heard Sri A. Ravindra Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
4. The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor (in short 'J.Dr.') in O.S.No.623 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit was filed by the respondent (plaintiff/decree holder), which was decreed vide judgment & decree dated 08.12.2006 which is in the following terms:
“1) that the suit be and the same is hereby decreed directing the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of the 2nd floor premises of the plaint schedule building to the plaintiff on or before 8th February, 2007, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the same through process of Law, and
2) that the defendant do also pay a sum of Rs.8,128/- to the plaintiff towards institutional costs of this suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.Nil.”
5. Challenging, the decree dated 08.12.2006, A.S.No.33 of 2007 was filed, which was dismissed for non-prosecution on 20.03.2023.
6. The decree holder filed E.P.No.73 of 2025,
Judicial proceedings must ensure that all relevant applications are addressed before execution to uphold the principles of justice and fair trial.
Only parties with a direct legal relationship with an advocate can file complaints of professional misconduct against them under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party approaching the court must do so with clean hands and must not engage in forum shopping. Additionally, the judgment and decree passed ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of filing a certified copy of the decree along with the memorandum of appeal, and the court's consideration of the maintainability ....
The executing court cannot go behind the decree unless it is a nullity, and re-agitating objections already dismissed in a previous petition would amount to an abuse of process of law.
The executing court cannot stay execution of its own decree; such authority lies with the appellate court.
Claims for unpaid legal fees by an Advocate must be pursued in civil courts, and attempts to halt legal proceedings over fee disputes violate the ethics and dignity of the profession.
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
