THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.154 of 2005 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice K.LAKSHMAN)

On 14.03.2019, this Court passed the following order:-

“Registry is directed to inform the petitioner that despite the service of notice informing him that his former Advocate, Mr. R. Kameswara Rao, has expired, despite granting him four weeks time to engage the services of a new counsel or to appear in person, even today, the petitioner has neither appeared personally nor through a counsel.

Therefore, this Court grants the petitioner another period of four weeks to appear either in person or through a counsel on the next date, failing which this petition shall be dismissed for non- prosecution.

List this case on 15.04.2019.”

Inspite of the specific direction issued by this Court on

14.03.2019, the petitioner herein failed to engage a counsel.

2. We have perused the record.

3. The petitioner has filed the present revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 06.12.2004 passed in E.P.No.582 of 2004 in O.S.No. 630 of 2003 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem.

4. Respondent No.1 had filed a suit in O.S. No. 630 of 2003 against the petitioner and respondent Nos.3 and 4 for recovery of money. The suit was decreed holding that the petitioner and respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are jointly and severally liable to pay the decree amount along with interest. Pursuant to the said decree, respondent No.1 filed an execution petition vide E.P.No. 582 of 2004 in O.S. No. 630 of 2003 seeking execution of the judgment and decree. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, issued an attachment order dated 06.12.2004. In the said proceedings, the petitioner is the guarantor, respondent No.3 is the loanee, and respondent No.4 is another guarantor.

5. The petitioner filed the present revision contending that the learned executing Court, i.e., the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, failed to consider Rule 35 of the A.P. Agency Rules, 1924, and that it has no jurisdiction to execute the decree and judgment passed in O.S. No. 630 of 2003. It is further contended that the executing Court failed to consider the relevant Agency Rules and the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, holding that the Agency Rules framed under Section 6 of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 (sic: 1894) are applicable. Therefore, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, had no jurisdiction to execute the said decree and judgment by entertaining E.P. No. 582 of 2004 filed by respondent No.1/decree holder.

6. There is no dispute with regard to the legal position that in Scheduled Areas, civil courts have no jurisdiction to execute decrees passed by civil courts, and that it is the Special Agent/Agency Court which is competent to dispose of execution petitions. This principle has also been laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank and Others v. Medi Narayana and Others, (2013) 4 SCC 362, and in the common order dated 11.12.2018 in C.R.P. No. 3800 of 2001 and batch.

7. It is apt to note that in the plaint filed by respondent No.1 in O.S. No. 630 of 2003, it is specifically mentioned that defendant No.1, the loanee, is a tribal and a resident of Laxmidevipally, which is an agency area. Therefore, there is no dispute that defendant No.1 is a tribal and a resident of Laxmidevipally, which also falls within the agency area.

8. As discussed supra, despite granting sufficient opportunity, the petitioner herein failed to engage a new counsel. There is no interim order in this case. There is also no information regarding the realisation of the amount covered under the decree in O.S. No. 630 of 2003, either from the petitioner or from respondent No.1. Further, there are no instructions to the effect that defendant No.1 has paid the

entire decretal amount or that respondent No.1, the decree holder, has realised the said amount.