THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2245, 2251 and 2220 of 2025

COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner, being aggrieved by the common orders dated 02.01.2025 passed in E.P. No.14 of 2023 in O.S. No.209 of 2014; E.P. No.13 of 2023 in O.S. No.203 of 2014; and E.P. No.12 of 2023 in O.S. No.202 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar, seeking dismissal of the said Execution Petitions.

2. Since the petitioner and the issues involved in all these petitions are identical, they are heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order.

3. Heard Mr. Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel representing Ms. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. M.W.R. Jayakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder.

4.1. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent/decree holder had filed suits for recovery of money, being O.S. Nos. 202, 203, and 209 of 2014, before the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar. These suits were decreed in favour of the respondent. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred Appeal Suits before this Hon’ble Court, and upon filing stay petitions, this Court granted conditional stay orders subject to the deposit of 25% of the decretal amount, pending disposal of the appeals.

4.2. However, despite obtaining an extension of time, the petitioner failed to comply with the said condition and did not deposit the required amount. Consequently, the stay stood vacated. Thereafter, the respondent/ decree holder initiated execution proceedings by filing E.P. Nos. 14, 13, and 12 of 2023 for attachment and sale of the immovable property described in the schedule to satisfy the decretal amount.

4.3. The Executing Court, finding no impediment or subsisting stay from the Appellate Court, proceeded with execution and passed the impugned orders. The petitioner, challenging the said orders, contends that the schedule property, whose actual market value is approximately Rs.10.31 Crores, is vastly disproportionate to the decretal amount of about Rs.3 Crores. It is argued that the Executing Court failed to consider whether a portion of the property could satisfy the decree and that only so much of the attached property as is necessary to satisfy the decree should be sold. Hence, the petitioner prays for setting aside the impugned orders and for appropriate directions.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder submits that the Executing Court rightly proceeded with execution since there was no stay order from the Appellate Court. He contends that the Registrar’s market valuation of the schedule property was approximately Rs.59 lakhs, and hence, the petitioner’s contention regarding undervaluation is baseless. It is further submitted that the valuation certificate now relied upon by the petitioner was never produced before the Executing Court, and even if considered, the total value of the property is not excessive when compared to the aggregate decretal amount. Therefore, the execution and proposed sale of the entire property are justified and lawful. The respondent thus prays for dismissal of the revision petitions.

6. This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record.

7. The execution proceedings pertain to the sale of the schedule property, namely house bearing Nos. 9-1-181 and 9-1-182, situated at Bharathnagar, Karimnagar, for satisfaction of the decrees and judgments passed in O.S. Nos. 209, 203, and 202 of 2014.

8. The impugned order reveals that the Executing Court duly considered the maintainability of execution and found no legal impediment to proceed, as there was no subsisting stay from the Appellate Court. The Court further observed that the property was already under attachment during the pendency of the suits, and therefore, proceeding with its sale to realize the fruits of the decrees was proper.