APHC010286272022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Thursday, the Seventeenth day of April

Two Thousand and Twenty Five

Present

The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi

Civil Revision Petition No.583 of 2025

Between:

Dindukurthi Ramprasad S/o D.Ramachandraiah Aged about 45 years, R/o Vidya Nagar, Kurnool

...Petitioner

and

V.Pradeep Kumar S/o late V. A. Patel

R/o Bandimetta Street, Kurnool

...Respondent

Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha

Counsel for the respondent: Sri Lakshmikanth Reddy Desai

The Court made the following:

ORDER

This revision under Section 115 CPC is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 03.02.2025, allowing E.P.No.2 of 2019 in P.L.C.No.3030 of 2015 on the file of the Court of the Principal District Judge, Kurnool, filed by the decree holder against the judgment debtor under Order XXI, rules 34 and 35 and Section 151 CPC to issue notice to the JDr directing him to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the DHr at the cost of DHr in respect of EP schedule property, order delivery of possession and on his failure, order the same under due process of law.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The facts as stated in the affidavit filed in support of E.P.No.2 of

2019, in brief, are as follows:

a. The JDr executed an agreement of sale, dated 13.05.2015, in respect of the petition schedule property in favour of the DHr. The dispute was referred to Lok Adalat, Kurnool. After notice, both parties were present before the Lok Adalat, terms of compromise were prepared and after due enquiry, the matter was settled before the Lok Adalat. An award, dated 04.08.2015, was passed in terms of the compromise. One of the terms of the compromise was not incorporated in the award due to oversight. Thereupon, petition No.42 of 2016 was filed seeking amendment of the award of the Lok Adalat and after notice to the JDr, the award was amended on 29.01.2016. Thereafter, the balance sale consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was also paid to the JDr in anticipation that the JDr may come for registration of the sale deed. However, as the JDr did not come forward for registration of the sale deed, the DHr filed execution petition.

b. E.P.No.1443 of 2017 was filed seeking a direction to the JDr to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the DHr and deliver possession of the EP schedule property. The DHr could not contact his counsel on the date of adjournment and consequently, the EP was dismissed on 17.04.2019 for default. Hence, the present execution petition was filed seeking a direction to the JDr to execute the sale deed in favour of the DHr as aforesaid.

4. The JDr filed counter opposing the petition and denying his liability to execute the registered sale deed. It is further contended in the counter as follows:

a. There is no executable decree. The pre-litigation award is merely an agreement to sell the petition schedule property for Rs.50,00,000/- to the DHr after receiving Rs.38,00,000/- at the first instance and Rs.2,00,000/- on 08.06.2015.

b. The JDr never intended to sell the EP schedule property to the DHr. Since the DHr promised that on payment of the debts, the award will be torn off, the JDr signed the award before the Lok Adalat as an agreement to sell the property assuring (the repayment of) the loan. As the JDr did not agree for passing of the award for execution of the sale deed, that part was not incorporated in the award.

c. The award filed by the DHr contains material alterations with regard to clause (3), viz., incorporating the words “also received Rs.9,00,000/- on 25.07.2015”. The said incorporation is without the knowledge and consent of the JDr.

d. With regard to payment of Rs.9,00,000/- on 25.07.2015, there was no mention of it in the award. But, the award was subsequently amended without the knowledge and consent of the JDr. DHr impersonated the JDr before the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority and committed fraud for passing an or