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

2025 Supreme(Online)(AP) 10176

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B S Bhanumathi, J
Kamavaram Aruna – Appellant
Versus
Manukindi Eranna – Respondent
Civil Revision Petition No.1369 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sri K Rajanna
For the Respondents: None Appeared

Judicial proceedings must allow parties a fair opportunity to present evidence; dismissals without such opportunities contravene justice.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 115 - Execution Petition - Dismissal of execution petition for want of evidence - Petitioners contended that they were denied opportunity to lead evidence - Courts must ensure fair opportunity is provided to parties - Revision allowed, dismissing prior order and directing retrial. (Paras 3, 5)

(B) Execution of Decree - The principle of providing opportunity - Dismissal without adequate hearing of evidence leads to miscarriage of justice. (Para 5)

Facts of the case:
The petitioners filed an execution petition for disobedience of a decree for permanent injunction regarding agricultural land, which was dismissed for lack of evidence. The petitioners argued that they were not given a chance to present their evidence.

Findings of Court:
The Court recognized that dismissing the petition without allowing evidence is unjust, hence ordered it to be retried.

Issues: Whether the execution petitioners received an adequate opportunity to present their evidence in support of their claim.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for fair trial standards, stating that dismissals without proper hearings can lead to unjust outcomes.

Result: Revision petition is allowed, and previous order is set aside.

Table of Content
1. execution petition dismissed for lack of evidence. (Para 1 , 2)
2. claimants were not allowed to present their evidence. (Para 4)
3. court emphasized the need for fair opportunity in judicial processes. (Para 5)
ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under section 115 of C.P.C against the order dated 25.04.2025 dismissing E.P.No.145 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Adoni filed under Order 21 rule 32(1) CPC to order arrest of judgment debtors No.1 to 5 for disobedience of the decree for permanent injunction and send them to civil prison.

2. The revision petitioners/decree holders contended that judgment debtors No.1 to 5 are intentionally interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of D.Hrs over land to an extent of Ac.1.83 cents in survey No.147 of Kosigi village, Kurnool district and trying to damage the standing crop in BSB, J C.R.P.No.1369 of2025 that property. On receipt of notices, judgment debtors failed to appear before the execution Court. Hence, they were set exparte.

3. The D.Hrs filed E.A.No.277 of 2024 seeking police aid. The petition was not pressed on 21.04.2025. On the same day the execution Court heard the counsel for the D.Hrs and posted the matter ‘for orders’

on 25.04.2025. The execution petition was dismissed on 25.04.2025 holding that the decree holders failed to adduce any evidence to prove their contentions. Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition was filed.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the execution Court had not given opportunity to lead evidence, but dismissed the petition as though evidence was not lead by the decree holders.

He further submitted that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Periyammal (Dead) Thr.

Lrs. and others Vs., V.Rajamani and Anr.,^ which directed the disposal of the execution petitions within six (06) months, the execution petition was dismissed without providing adequate opportunity, solely on the ground that the execution petition was filed in the year 2023.

5. Since the petitioner was not given chance to lead evidence but the petition was dismissed on the ground of want of evidence, it is a fit case to interfere with the impugned order.

• revision petition is allowed and the order dated

25.04.2025 dismissing E.P.No.145 of 2023 in O.S.No.22 of 2021 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, (Junior Division) at Adoni is set aside. The execution Court is directed to give opportunity to the decree holders to lead evidence and decide the petition afresh, within three (03) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. The D.Hrs shall produce all the evidence in support of their contentions without taking any further time.

There shall be no order as to costs.

'2025 see Online Se 507 r ' BSB, J C.R.P.No.1369 of2025 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.

Sd/- A VENUGOPALA RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

SEC OFFICER To

1. The Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division). Adoni, Kurnool District.

2. One CC to Sri K Rajanna, Advocate [OPUC]

3. Two CD Copies TK vna high court DATED;24/06/2025 \

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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top