Court offices cannot indefinitely return pleadings for defects. If a filing is returned three times and objections persist, the office must list the matter before the Presiding Officer for a judicial decision via a speaking order to prevent the remedy from becoming infructuous.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

1. Heard Sri T. Diwakar Reddy, learned Counsel for the Civil Revision Petitioner.

2. Having been aggrieved by the inaction of the Office of the IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, in numbering the Execution Application under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure in E.P.No.15 of 2023 in O.S. No.73 of 2017, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. The facts as narrated in the Execution Application would indicate that the Applicant is the Third Party, and Respondent Nos.1 and 2 therein are the Decree Holders, and Respondent Nos.3 to 5 are the Judgment Debtors in the Execution Petition. It is averred that Respondent Nos.1 to 5 in the E.P. are no way concerned with the E.P. Schedule Property.

4. The Revision Petitioner has stated in the Execution Application that she had came to know that the Decree Holders have filed the present Execution Petition against the Judgment Debtors for recovery of the E.P. amount of Rs.85,10,163/- together with interest and costs by selling the E.P. Schedule Property on the strength of the Decree dated 03.02.2020 in O.S.No.73 of 2017. It is also stated in the Execution Application by the Revision Petitioner that the subject property was mortgaged in favour of the Decree Holders by the Judgment Debtors by way of Registered Mortgage Deed dated 12.06.2013 vide Document No.1746 of 2013.

5. The Revision Petitioner herein submits that she became the absolute owner of the Petition Schedule Property under Registered Sale Deed dated 14.11.2017 vide Document No.1755 of 2017 for valuable consideration from one Kothapalli Gangaraju, who is Judgment Debtor No.1.

6. It is also stated that since the date of purchase, the Revision Petitioner has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the said Property without any interference, and her name has been mutated in all the Revenue Records. It is further stated that the Revision Petitioner has obtained the Pattadar Pass Book and Adangals in her name.

7. It is particularly averred by the Revision Petitioner that, at the time of sale, she had obtained an Encumbrance Certificate with regard to the Petition Schedule Property, and after understanding that the said Property was free from any encumbrance, she had purchased the subject property.

8. The Revision Petitioner has filed a copy of the Registered Sale Deed dated 14.11.2017 vide Document No.1755 of 2017 along with the Execution Application before the IV Additional District Judge, Srikakulam.

9. It is also stated that the Revision Petitioner’s Vendor (Sri Kothapalli Gangaraju – Judgment Debtor No.1) had purchased the Petition Schedule Property by way of Registered Sale Deed dated 29.01.2011 vide Document No.161 of 2011 from one Sri Bhogi Viswanadham, who had inherited the said property from his ancestors.

10. It is further stated that Sri Bhogi Viswanadham became the absolute owner of the Petition Schedule Property by way of devolution. It is also stated that the Revision Petitioner got the Petition Schedule Property converted into commercial land vide Application No.NLCR011800012112.

11. In the above premise, the Revision Petitioner made a Prayer in the Execution Application to adjudicate the claim of the Petitioner by declaring that she is having right over some extent of the E.P. Schedule Property along with the Respondents and to exclude the same from the Sale Proceedings in th