COMMON ORDER:

These are three Civil Revision Petitions filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 23.01.2024 passed by the Court of the III Additional Court Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad (for short, ‘the trial Court) in I) E.A.S.R.No.8813 of 2023 in E.P.No.29 of 2014 II) Execution Application No.74 of 2023 in Execution Petition No.29 of 2014 and III) Execution Application No.73 of 2023 in Execution Petition No.29 of 2014.

2. Heard Mr. Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner on admission.

3. The facts in Civil Revision Petition No.906 of 2024 are taken up as the lead case for the purpose of deciding the three Civil Revision Petitions. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter shall be referred to as they are arrayed before the Court below.

4. The present again is a classic example of a decree holder not being able to get the decree executed for more than two (02) decades for some reason or the other. The original dispute in the instant cases is that which arises out of O.S.No.132 of 1999 on the file of the then A.P. Waqf Tribunal which stood decreed in favour of the decree holder on 13.11.2002 and an EP was also filed in respect of the said decree in the year 2014. Pending the said EP, the decree holder came to know that the judgment debtor Mr. B.Ramaswamy had meanwhile expired. The decree holder moved an E.A.No.19 of 2015 for bringing the legal heirs on record. The same stood allowed vide order dated 25.08.2015. The said amendment bringing legal heirs on record has gone unchallenged since then. Meanwhile, the judgment debtor No.2 as well as the other persons filed number of EA’s on one pretext or the other. One by one all the EA’s stood dismissed. Finally, the judgment debtor No.2 had taken another technical objection in respect of the decree which was transferred to the Civil Court by the Waqf Tribunal was without jurisdiction. The trial Court rejected the said objection also on 10.08.2021.

5. The judgment debtor No.2 preferred a Civil Revision Petition before the High Court challenging the order dated 10.08.2021 and the same stood allowed vide order dated 23.11.2021 wherein the High Court held that the Waqf Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to pass the decree. The decree holder immediately challenged the said order of the High Court dated 23.11.2021 by way of Civil Appeal No.6933 of 2023 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal vide judgment dated 20.10.2023 and held that the view of the High Court in Civil Revision Petition No.1264 of 2021 was not proper and had therefore set aside the same and further restored the order passed by the trial Court dated 10.08.2021 in E.P.No.29 of 2014.

6. Subsequent to the allowing of Civil Appeal preferred by the decree holder and on the restoration of the order of the trial Court dated 10.08.2021 in E.P.No.29 of 2014, the judgment debtor No.2 upon entering appearance before the trial Court in the EP, filed another EA under Section 47 read with Section 151 of CPC raising various objections in respect of the EP. Firstly, the EP has been filed at a belated stage. Secondly, the EP now has been reopened after it was closed on 14.12.2021 which was not otherwise permissible. It was contended that the EP is not reopened in terms of Order under XXI Rule 22 of the CPC and that since the EP remained closed since 14.12.2021 it could have been reopened only by way of memo that too after a period of two (02) years. The other objections that were raised also is in respect of the maintainability of the EP since the schedule A property as mentioned in the EP is not identifiable and that no ‘sketch plan’ is attached to the EP schedule.

7. It was also contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the EP schedule property does not tally with the original decree and the boundaries are not tallying, hence, the EP is not maintainable. Further, the schedule A property