Repeated failure of petitioners to establish rights in execution proceedings justified dismissal of applications for stay and highlighted abusive court practices.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. V. Aravind, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.M.Ravi Kumar, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. The parties to all the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and the petitions are filed on similar grounds aggrieved by various proceedings that took place in continuation of the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2003 passed in O.S.No.830 of 2001 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar.

3. The C.R.P.No.2579 of 2024 is preferred by the petitioners/appellants/claim petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 03.07.2024 in I.A.No.615 of 2024 in A.S.No.3 of 2024 pending on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Medchal- Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, wherein, a petition filed under Order XLI Rule 5 (1) of CPC to grant stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.379 of 2022 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally, has been dismissed.

4. The C.R.P.No.2579 of 2024 is preferred by the petitioners/ claim petitioners to direct the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Kukatpally to take up the suit in O.S.No.405 of 2006 filed by the petitioners for cancellation of decree passed in O.S.No.803 of 2001 along with E.P.No.379 of 2022 in O.S.No.803 of 2001.

5. The C.R.P.No.3692 of 2024 is filed by the petitioners/ claim petitioners aggrieved by the Docket Order dated 13.08.2024 in EP No. 379 of 2022 in O.S.No.830 of 2001.

6. Since parties to all the Civil Revision Petitions are one and the same and these petitions are filed aggrieved by the orders in cases initiated in continuance of judgment and decree dated 10.02.2003 passed in O.S.No.830 of 2001 on the file of the I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar on similar grounds, all of them are heard together and disposed of by way of this common order.

7. The background facts of the case are that the respondent No.2/plaintiff (P. Vidyasagar) filed suit in O.S.No.830 of 2001 seeking specific performance of Agreement of sale against respondent No.1/defendant (M. Hanumantha Rao) and obtained ex-parte decree on 10.02.2003. Thereafter, said Vidyasagar filed E.P.No.24 of 2005 and obtained registered sale deed No.234 of 2006 dated 09.01.2006. Subsequently, plaintiff filed E.P No.90 of 2007 dated 04.06.2007 seeking delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. The revision petitioners i.e. legal heirs of defendant/JDR filed suit in O.S.No.405 of 2006 on the file of I Addl. Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte decree and judgment in O.S.No.830 of 2001 claiming right in the E.P schedule property.

8. During pendency of E.P.90 of 2007, the wife and children of the JDR Hanumantha Rao/defendant filed claim petition in E.A.No.133 of 2007 for recall of warrant and E.A No.134 of 2007 for stay of all proceedings and said E.As were dismissed on 01.04.2009. Thereafter, the revision petitioners, who are the wife and children of the JDR, preferred Appeal vide A.S.No.103 of 2009 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District and said appeal was also dismissed on 18.03.2014. Aggrieved by said judgment and decree, the revision petitioners preferred Second Appeal vide No.376 of 2014 on the file of this Court and said Second Appeal is currently pending. While things stood thus, E.P.No.90 of 2007 was dismissed for default on 27.01.2012 for non-prosecution. Then, the decree holder/plaintiff filed E.P.No.221 of 2014 (New No.379 of 2022) on the I Additional Senior Civil Judge under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC for deliv