The court maintained that a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 99 is barred by limitation if filed more than 30 days after dispossession, emphasizing adherence to the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J.

This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Revision Petition, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is filed aggrieved by the Docket order, dated 23.03.2017, in E.A (SR) No.1745 of 2015 in E.P.No.101 of 2012 passed by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim petitioners-3rd party filed claim petition seeking to allow the claim petition by making necessary changes in the proceedings and delete the land of the claim petitioners from the decree as well as warrant of bailiff with necessary orders and rejected by impugned order, dated 23.03.2017.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Section 151 of C.P.C raising objections as to the delivery of the possession of the property situated at northern portion of house bearing Municipal No.1-9-515 to 518, consisting of shed, hall with Asbestos sheets roof, admeasuring 254 square yards of 212.34 square meters, situated at Adikmet, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, bounded by:

having acquired the same by virtue of Gift deed, dated 05.12.1973 and subsequently executed registered Gift Settlement Deed, dated 06.07.2010 by late Chintala Ramchander i.e., Judgment Debtor No.2 in favour of the petitioners herein by handing over physical possession in the year 1973 itself. It is stated that the petitioners came to the knowledge of the same recently in the month of December, 2014 and approached the Court by filing Claim Petition and then they came to know about filing of E.P.No.101 of 2012 in O.S.No.787 of 1985 by Late P.Venkateswara Rao, for execution of decree and judgment in O.S.No.787 of 1985, dated 13.02.2009 passed by the learned trial Court against the Judgment debtors/respondent Nos.1 and 2 recently in the month of December, 2014.

3. It is further stated that on 21.04.2015 the respondents visited the suit schedule property with some third parties and taking hectic efforts to alienate the same in their favour. In the said circumstances, the petitioners approached the trial Court seeking to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property, otherwise they will be put to irreparable loss. The learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide order, dated 22.03.2017 passed the docket order. Operative portion of the said order reads as follows:

“On careful perusal of the entire material available on record, admittedly the present petition is filed by the petitioner on 23.04.2015, it shows that the petition filed by the petitioners after lapse of more than 2 years from the date of dispossession. Therefore, this petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and barred by limitation. It is well settled law that if the third party who is other than judgment debtor dispossession in execution of decree not barred by filing a separate suit. Therefore, from the above foregoing discussion this Court comes to the firm opinion that office/Registry of this Court raised a correct objection for maintainability of the petition, as such petition is rejected.”

4. Challenging the same, the, present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-claim petitioners stating that the petitioners are staying far away from the E.P schedule property since 1997 till December, 2014; that the Judgment Debtor including the Decree Holders are not informed the same to the petitioners, therefore, the question of limitation does not arise and petition filed by t