THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE J.SREENIVAS RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1695, 1922, 1933 and 1936 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the petitioners under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the common order dated 04.09.2024 passed by the learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, in E.P.Nos.234, 235, 236, and 237 of 2023 respectively, dismissing the Execution Petitions filed by the petitioners.

2. Heard Sri Y.Pulla Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P.V.Krishnamachary, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5.

3. For the sake of convenience, the facts in C.R.P.No.1695 of

2025 are hereunder discussed.

4. The petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.123 of 2022 on the file of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem, for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,56,000/-. The learned Agent to Government passed an ex-parte decree on 30.06.2023. Along with the said suit, the petitioner also filed I.A.No.112 of 2022 seeking attachment before judgment, pursuant to which the scheduled property was attached.

Subsequent to the decree, the decree holder filed E.P.No.235 of 2022. During the pendency of the said E.P., respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed a claim petition i.e., E.A.No.5 of 2024, contending that they had purchased the scheduled property from respondent No.1/ Judgment Debtor on 01.03.2022, and they are having absolute rights over the said property and the decree holder was not entitled to seek execution of decree against the said property. However, without adjudicating the claim petition, the learned Agent to Government dismissed the Execution Petition through the impugned order dated 04.09.2024, solely on the ground that respondent Nos.2 to 5 had already approached the this Court by filing W.P.No.24180 of 2023, challenging the cancellation of assessment of property tax and further directed the parties to resolve the issues before the High Court. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Agent to Government dismissed the Execution Petitions without assigning any reasons. The mere pendency of the writ petition is not a valid ground to dismiss the execution petitions. He further submitted that, in the writ petition, respondent Nos.2 to 5 have questioned the proceedings issued by the Gram Panchayat cancelling the assessment of property tax in respect of the scheduled property. He further submitted that the learned Agent to Government has not adjudicated the claim petitions to determine whether respondent Nos.2 to 5 have any semblance of right to defeat the decree passed in favor of the petitioners. Hence, the impugned order passed by the learned Agent to Government is contrary to law and is liable to be set aside. He also submitted that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are claiming rights over the subject property in Sy.No.137/12 based on a sada sale deed dated 01.03.2022 set to have been executed by respondent No.1/judgment debtor, though respondent No.1/judgment debtor availed a loan from the petitioner by executing a promissory note dated 27.05.2021 prior to execution of alleged sada sale deed dated 01.03.2022. Therefore, the claim petitioners do not confer any right over the subject property. 6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 submitted that the learned Agent to Government, after considering the contentions of both parties, rightly dismissed the Execution Petitions by giving cogent reasons. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Agent to Government.

7. Having considering the rival submissions made by the respective parties and perused the record. It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.123 of 2022 for recovery of an amount against Respondent No.1/Judgment Debtor. In the said suit, Respondent No.1 did not appear, and he was set ex-parte and the learned Agent to Government passed an ex-parte