APHC010639972025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3163]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3421/2025 Between:

1. M ATUKUMALLI SAI PRASAD, S/O. LATE M.V. RATNAM AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE, R/O. FLAT NO. 404, RAGHAVENDRA TOWERS, AYODHYA NAGAR, VIJAYAWADA.

...PETITIONER AND

1. E JJALA KRISHNAVENI, W/o. Late EjjalaTadaiah, Aged about 72 years, R/o. D.No. 17-22-33/3, Hart Peta, R.C.M Church Street, Vijayawada ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toaggrieved by the execution proceedings in the E.P No.103 of 2021 in suit O.S.No. 497 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge at Vijayawada Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. VAKATI VENKATA GNANUSHA Counsel for the Respondent:

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Since this civil revision petition is filed seeking expeditious disposal of E.P.No.103 of 2021 filed for execution of the decree in O.S.No.497 of 2014 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, having regard to the limited relief claimed in this revision petition, notice to respondent /

judgment-debtor is dispensed with.

2. Heard Sri M.Radhakrishna, learned counsel, representing Ms.Vakati Venkata Gnanusha, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.497 of 2014 on the file of learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The suit was filed by the petitioner for recovery of the suit amount on the foot of the promissory note. The suit was decreed. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed E.P.No.103 of 2021 for execution of the said decree by way of sale of the immovable property of the defendant / judgment-debtor.

4. During the pendency of the said E.P., a third party has filed a claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). The said petition is now pending before the executing Court for enquiry.

5. The grievance of the revision petitioner is that even though the suit was an old suit of the year 2014 and it was decreed in the year 2016, the decree could not be executed and the fruits of the decree could not be realized till now. Therefore, relying on the direction given by the Apex Court in Rahul S.Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi and others, (2021) 6 Supreme Court Cases 418, which was reiterated again by the Apex Court in Periyammal (Dead) Through Legal Representatives and others v. V.Rajamani and another, (2025) 9 Supreme Court Cases 568, whereby it was

directed that the executing Court shall dispose of the execution proceedings within six months from the date of filing, which may be extended only by recording reasons in writing for such delay, the petitioner’s claim to direct the executing Court to dispose of the E.P. along with the claim petition by fixing a reasonable time by this Court.

6. In fact, it cannot be said that there are any latches or inaction on the part of the executing Court in disposing of the said E.P. within the time stipulated by the Apex Court in the above judgments. As a claim petition was filed by a third party under Order 21, Rule 58 of CPC, it has become an impediment for the executing Court to dispose of the E.P. The executing Court has to first dispose of the said claim petition and then dispose of the E.P. But, at any rate, as the E.P. is pertaining to an old suit of the year 2014, which was decreed long back in the year 2016, this Court is of the considered view that a direction is required to be given to the executing Court to dispose of both the claim petition as well as the E.P., expeditiously by fixing a time limit to that effect.

7. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the executing Court i.e. I Additional Senior Civil Judge