ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by non-disposal of E.P.No.19 of 2023 in O.S.No.450 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dhone, Kurnool District filed under Order XXI, rules 35 & 36 and Section 151 C.P.C to vacate the J.Dr.Nos.1 to 3 and deliver vacant possession of the E.P. schedule property to the D.Hr/revision petitioner.

02. It is the contention of the revision petitioner that merely because S.A.No.609 of 2023 filed before this High Court against the decree under execution is pending, though there is no order of stay of execution of decree, the Court is not proceeding with the execution. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of Supreme Court in Sanjiv Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar and others, [2023 LiveLaw (SC) 63], wherein it is held that unless there is an interim order granted, mere filing of appeal would not operate as stay.

03. The petitioner further contended that she is a senior citizen aged about 61 years and has undergone a cardiac surgery and her husband is aged about 73 years and suffers from cardiac and age related ailments.

04. Recently, on 06.03.2025, the Supreme Court in Periyammal (dead) Through LRs and others vs. V.Rajamani and another, [2025 SCC OnLine SC 507] directed all courts to dispose of execution petitions within time of six months holding presiding officer liable for failure, referring to earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Rahul S Shah vs. Jitendra Kumar Gandhi, [(2021) 6 SCC 418]

05. All three respondents are being represented through a common counsel before the execution Court. Though notice was served on the 3^rd respondent and appeared through counsel, no representation has been made today. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had sent notices to 1^st and 2^nd respondents to the addresses as given before the execution Court, but they were returned unserved as ‘door locked for seven days continuously’ and that such service of notice is deemed sufficient, however, as per the direction of this Court dated 12.02.2025 by the previous bench, notices were sent, but acknowledgments or unserved notices were not received. Under the above circumstances, this Court proceeded with hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, particularly as no adverse relief is claimed by the petitioner, except to expedite the execution proceedings.

06. For the all the above reasons, the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the execution Court to dispose of E.P.No.19 of 2023 in O.S.No.450 of 2011 as early as possible keeping in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Sanjiv Kumar Singh (supra) and direction of the Supreme Court in Periyammal (supra). There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________ JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Date: 12.03.2025 NSM HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI Civil Revision Petition No: 3085 of 2024 Date: 12.03.2025 NSM