IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI CIVIL REVISON PETITION No.4316 OF 2025 DATE : 28.11.2025 Between:

Smt Mukka Madhavi …Petitioner AND Burra Narsaiah Burra Narsaiah Goud …Respondent

ORDER:

Heard, Mr.M.W.R Jayakar, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed assailing the order dated 23.12.2024 passed in E.P.C.F. No.1904 of 2023 for execution of the decree in O.S. No.208 of 2014 by the learned I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar.

3. The brief facts are that, the revision petitioner/plaintiff instituted O.S. No.208 of 2014 for recovery of money, which was decreed on 23.03.2023. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner filed an Execution Petition seeking sale of the residential properties bearing Municipal Nos. 9-1-

181 and 9-1-182 situated at Bhagath Nagar, Karimnagar Town and District, in satisfaction of the decree.

4. However, the Executing Court, by the impugned order, returned the petition with an observation that, since a subsisting stay had been granted by this Court in I.A. No.2 of 2023 in A.S. No.274 of 2023, the Execution Petition could not be numbered and that the petitioner may approach the Executing Court after disposal of A.S. No.274 of 2023. Aggrieved by the refusal to register the Execution Petition, the present Civil Revision Petition has been preferred.

5.1. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff submits that the respondent/judgment debtor filed A.S. No.274 of 2023 before this Court challenging the decree in O.S. No.208 of 2014. While considering I.A. No.2 of 2023 therein, this Court was pleased to grant an interim stay of all further proceedings pursuant to the decree, subject to the condition that the appellant should deposit 25% of the decreetal amount within eight (8) weeks.

5.2. It is submitted that the respondent failed to comply with the said condition and, instead, filed I.A. Nos.2 and 3 of 2023 seeking extension of time for depositing the amount, which also remained uncomplied with. Therefore, as per law, the conditional stay automatically stood vacated upon failure to fulfill the condition. Despite this, the Executing Court failed to verify the compliance status and erroneously returned the Execution Petition instead of numbering it. Learned counsel further contends that once an Execution Petition is presented in proper form, it must be registered, and any determination on maintainability or existence of stay should be made only after due adjudication.

5.3. Learned counsel further relies upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Goripati Veera Venkata Rao v. Ethalapaka Vanaja, [C.R.P.No.1841 OF 2024 dated 10.01.2025] and pleaded that, it was observed that rejection of a plaint or petition for procedural defects without adjudication on merits should be avoided, as it amounts to denial of access to justice. Thus, it is contended that the impugned order returning the Execution Petition is unsustainable.

6. I have perused the material available on record.

7. From the record, it is evident that the Execution Petition filed by the petitioner was returned by the Executing Court on the ground that a stay order granted by this Court in A.S. No.274 of 2023 was still in force. However, as per the conditional order passed in the said appeal, the stay was operative only upon deposit of 25% of the decreetal amount, failing which the interim stay would automatically stand vacated. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that no such deposit has been made till date.

8. Despite this contention, the Executing Court did not verify the factual position regarding compliance with the condition imposed by this Court and declined to number the Execution Petition merely on the presumption of a subsisting stay. This approach is procedurally unsound. At the stage of registration, the Court’s duty is confined to examining the formal correctness and maintainability of the Execution Petition under Order XXI Rule 11(2) rea