THE HON’BLE JUSTICE B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1677 of 2025

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner-Decree holder challenging the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in E.P.No.11 of 2022 in O.S.No.118 of

2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak.

2. Heard Mr. N Bhujanga Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has dismissed the E.P. on presumptions and assumptions and no one has raised objection with regard to the boundaries. Moreover, the boundaries mentioned in the decree, E.P. and draft sale deed are one and the same and there are no contradictions. Learned trial Court failed to see that the decree is clearly tallied with the description of E.P. and there is no deviation with regard to the schedule property.

4. Notice to respondent Nos.1 and 2 is served in the C.R.P. but, they failed to appear.

5. The petitioner has filed O.S.No.118 of 2019 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 17.10.2014 directing the respondents-defendants to execute the registered sale deed in his favour in respect of the plaint schedule property i.e., land admeasuring Ac.0-04¾ guntas out of Ac.0-07 guntas in Sy.Nos.136 and 137 of Manoharabad Village and Mandal, Medak District, bounded by North: land of Sudhakar Reddy; South: land of Anjaiah; East: land of neighbors; West: Road. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 failed to contest the suit, thereby, an ex parte decree came to be passed by the learned trial Court on 06.01.2021.

6. The petitioner has filed E.P.No.2 of 2021 before learned Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet along with draft sale deed for registration of the instrument pertaining to the suit schedule property. On administrative grounds, it was transferred to learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak and re- numbered as E.P.No.11 of 2022. The learned trial Court vide order dated 03.02.2025 has dismissed the E.P.No.11 of 2022 with an observation that “record and the documents filed, the court found the total extent of land mentioned in E.P. is Ac.0.04¾ guntas of land in Sy.Nos.136 and 137 and the extent of land mentioned in sale deed document is about Ac.0.01 guntas in Sy.No.137 but on perusing the extent of land in the documents and decree, the Court found the extent of land and boundaries mentioned in E.P. is different with the mentioned extent and boundaries in sale deed. Therefore, the Court is of the view that petitioner-DHR is not entitled to claim execution of Ac.007 guntas out of Ac.0.04¾ guntas, if he seeks to rectify the extent of land for execution of decree then he may seek remedy for rectification of suit schedule property in the main suit, but he cannot claim the said remedy for rectification of extent in Execution Proceedings. Therefore, as boundaries and extent of suit schedule property is not tallied, court found proper to dismiss the Execution Proceedings”.

7. The schedule shown in the plaint at paragraph No.5 supra, the schedule shown in the decree in O.S.No.118 of 2019 dated 06.01.2021 with that of the schedule in E.P.No.11 of 2022 remain the same which is also shown in the draft sale deed filed along with E.P. Learned trial Court has lost sight of the same and passed an absurd order without going through the record.

8. In view of the same, the order passed by the learned trial Court in E.P.No.11 of 2022 dated 03.02.2025 is liable to be set aside.

9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 03.02.2025 passed in E.P.No.11 of 2022 in O.S.No.118 of 2019 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Medak. There shall be no order as to costs.

Interim orders and miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

______________________________ B.R.MADHUSUDHAN RAO, J September 11, 2025

pn/vjb