SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Telangana) 1596

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA 
Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.
Byram Narayana - Appellant
Vs.
Rama Rajam - Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No. 3033 of 2025
Decided On : 14-11-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Venkateshvarlu Gummadavelly

Prolonged delays in execution proceedings obstruct justice, and third parties are estopped from raising objections previously decided in the original suit.

Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order XXI Rules 25, 35, and 36 - Judicial proceedings related to execution of decrees - Validity of eviction notice challenged on grounds of jurisdiction and improper procedure; Court emphasized the principles of estoppel and timely execution of decrees. (Paras 2-10)

(B) Delay in execution - The principles of justice affirm that prolonged delay in executing a decree is itself a form of denial of justice. (Paras 8, 9)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenge the issuance of eviction notices arising from long-standing disputes over land ownership, dating back to a 1992 decree, with various third parties seeking to obstruct execution proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the previous decisions to execute the decree and emphasized that delays in execution must not allow third parties to impede the process.

Issues: The primary issues involved the legality of the eviction notice, jurisdictional authority of the court, and the principle of estoppel against third-party objections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court maintained that the execution must proceed as per the original decree to prevent further delays and reiterated the significance of finality in judicial decisions.

Result: Revision petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. factual background of property dispute (Para 1 , 2)
2. arguments against the execution notice (Para 3 , 4)
3. court's reasoning on execution merits (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. final decision to dismiss the revision (Para 10 , 11)

ORDER :

Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.

Aggrieved by the order in E.P. No. 08 of 2016 in O.S. No. 18 of 1986 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bellampalli, Mancherial District dated 04.08.2025 and the consequential Eviction Notice dated 21.08.2025, Revision Petitioners / Third Party occupants on the alleged plaint schedule of properties preferred this Civil Revision Petition.

2. Originally, the suit was instituted on the file of the District Munsif Court, Asifabad, by the Plaintiff Rama Rajam against Madipally Ramagoud and 17 others as defendants. The said suit was decreed on 29.08.1992, declaring plaintiff as owner of the suit schedule land in Sy. No.3/Paiki (3/9) admeasuring Acs. 2-75 cents situated at Akenapalli Village of Bellampalli Mandal and defendants were directed to dismantle the structures and to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule land to plaintiff with future mense profits @ Rs. 1,000/- per year. Aggrieved thereby, defendants preferred AS No. 14 of 1992 before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Asifabad. The said Appeal was dismissed on 31.01.1998. Plaintiff filed E.P. No. 01 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Asifabad under Order XXI Rule 25 of CPC to issue warrant of delivery of possession of vacant land as per the decree. Meanwhile, the sole Decree Holder viz. Rama Rajaram died on 20.03.2001 and his LRs. Ram Salamma, Ram Pocham and Ram Kistaiah were brought on record as per orders in EA No. 01/2001 dated 15.06.2001.

2.1. The M.R.O., Bellampalli filed E.A. No. 03 of 2001 in E.P. No. 01 of 2000 in OS No. 18 of 1986 under Order XXI Rules 97 & 35 read with Section 151 CPC to adjudicate the claims of the Government over the land in Survey Nos. 3/6, 3/7 admeasuring Acs. 2.80 cents and Acs. 2.97 cents respectively and suit schedule land in Survey No. 3 Paiki (3/9) admeasuring Acs.2.75 cents situated at Akenapalli Village and to declare the Government as owner of the above said lands. This E.A. was dismissed with costs on 28.08.2001. Initially, the Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad issued a warrant to the Bailiff to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule land to the Decree Holder. The Bailiff filed a report on 23.07.2001 stating that warrant was returned unexecuted since pucca constructions of shops and residential quarters are there in the suit schedule land and praying for want of further specific orders for execution of the warrant.

2.2. The Decree Holder filed E.A. No. 05 of 2001 in E.P. No. 1 of 2000 in OS No. 18 of 1986 under Order XXI Rule 97(1) read with Section 151 CPC. to direct the Bailiff to remove the obstructions, if any made by third parties while executing the warrant of delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule land, if necessary by taking assistance of the Police. This E.A. was allowed on 28.08.2001 and the Court ordered issuance of fresh warrant. Accordingly, a fresh warrant was issued to the Bailiff. However, the Bailiff filed a report on 15.09.2001 stating that in Survey No. 3 Paiki (3/9) in an extent of Ac.2.75 cents, there is no shopping complex under Survey No. 3 Paiki (3/6) and (3/7) and he certified and returned warrant along with report of Village Sarpanch and Executive Officer. The Decree Holder filed objections on 08.10.2001 smelling some foul play since the Bailiff at the first instance in his report dated 23.07.2001 stated that there are pucca constructions of shops and residential quarters and in his further report dated 15.09.2001, he stated that there is no shopping complex in the suit schedule land.

2.3. Meanwhile, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bellampalli preferred AS No. 10 of 2001 before the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad dated 28.08.2001 in E.A. No. 03 of 2001. In th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top