ORDER:

This writ petition is filed seeking the following relief: -

“...to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Prohibition, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent taken on file the E.P.No.6 of 2016 in O.S.No.452 of 2006 for execution of the decree dated 04.10.2010 sent by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, at the instance of the 4th respondent is illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.5030-36 of 2004 and batch dated 08.12.2011 and consequently prohibit the 2nd respondent to proceed with E.P.No.6/2016 enforce the invalid decree dated 04.10.2010 in O.S.No.452/2006 in respect of the land in Sy.Nos.39, 40/1, 41 and 42/1 to an extent of Ac.1-30 guntas situated at Chandrugonda Village and Mandal of Bhadradri Kothagudem District, and to pass...”

2. Heard Smt. T. Padmaja, learned counsel representing Sri T.D. Phani Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Social Welfare appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and Sri P. Vijay Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that respondent No.4 filed suit in O.S.No.452 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem against the petitioners and others seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the agricultural land to an extent of Ac.1-30 guntas in Survey Nos.39, 40/1, 41 and 42/1, situated at Chandrugonda Village and Mandal, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, and the said Court granted perpetual injuction vide judgment and decree dated 04.10.2010. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed E.P.No.6 of 2016 for execution of the said decree.

4. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the subject property comes within the agency area and the Civil Court i.e., the Court of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem is not having jurisdiction to entertain the suit and the judgment and decree passed by the said Court on 04.10.2010 in O.S.No.452 of 2006 which is nullity, void and the same is not executable decree in view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagarjuna Grammena Bank and others v. Medi Narayana and others1. Hence, respondent No.4 is not entitled to enforce the decree dated 04.10.2010

1 (2013) 11 SCC 367

in O.S.No.452 of 2006, in E.P.No.6 of 2016 on the file of respondent No.2.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4 submits that the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.452 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, has become final and till date the petitioners have not filed any appeal. However, the learned counsel has not disputed the principle laid down in by the Hon’ble Apex Court.

7. Having considered the rival submissions made by the respective parties, after perusal of the material available on record, it reveals that it is undisputed fact that respondent No.4 has filed suit in O.S.No.452 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, for grant of perpetual injunction against the petitioners herein and others and the same was decreed on 04.10.2010. Thereafter, respondent No.4 filed E.P.No.6 of 2016 for enforcement of the decree before respondent No.2. In view of the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagarjuna Grammena Bank and others (cited supra), the decree passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, is unenforceable under law.

8. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed. However, respondent No.4 is granted liberty to avail the remedies as available under law, if so aggrieved. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________

JUSTICE J. SREENIVAS RAO Date: 13.06.2024 HFM/PRN