HON’BLE MRS JUSTI CE SUREPALLI NANDA CI VI L REVI SI ON PETI TI ON No.4149 of 2025

ORDER:

Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Designated Counsel representing Sri Gopala Rao Amancharla V, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on record, and Sri Anup Kuravadi, learned counsel representing Sri Anup Koushik Kuravadi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on record.

2. Aggrieved by the orders dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 passed by the Principal District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner.

3. PERUSED THE RECORD A) The relevant portion of the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P.No.37 of 2025 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 passed by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy is extracted hereunder:

“10. No doubt, review petition is filed. But by mere filing the review petition itself is not the ground for not proceeding with this E.P which is filed on obtaining the judgment and decree on contest and attained finality. Mere filing of the review application is not a bar for execution court to proceed with the matter as held in V. Vengamalai Gounder (deceased) by L.Rs and others v. K. Perumal Gounder LNI ND 2011 MAD 4181. The decree holders in whose favour the decree was passed should be allowed to enjoy the fruits of the judgment and decree. All the issues raised by the judgment debtor herein are not considerable in this E.P proceedings.

11. As the judgment and decree is passed in favour of the decree holders and against the judgment debtor, the judgment debtor didn't pay any amount subsequent to the passing of the decree which has obtained finality having not preferred any appeal and as no denial with regard to the schedule property as belongs to him, this court is of the view that the decree holder is entitled for execution of the E.P by attaching the schedule property on payment of process.

12. In the result, the E.P is allowed and ordered for attachment of the E.P schedule immovable property on payment of process. No order as to costs. Call on 26.11.2025. For process by

17.11.2025.”

B) The petitioner filed the review petition i.e., I .A.No.2660 of 2024 in O.S. No.175 of 2017 before the trial Court challenging the decree dated 01.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2017 seeking prayer as under:

“to review the judgment and decree dated

01.08.2024 in O.S.No.175 of 2017 by setting aside the judgment and decree and prays to dismiss the suit with exemplary costs.”

DI SCUSSI ON AND CONCLUSI ON:

4. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly contends that the trial Court failed to observe that the review petition I.A.No.2660 of 2024 in O.S. No.175 of 2017 had been filed by the petitioner herein challenging the decree dated 01.08.2024 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2017 on legal grounds such as jurisdiction, limitation, non-joinder of parties, absence of witnesses, and the validity of the promissory notes when no consideration had been passed on and the same are sufficient grounds for adjudication in review. However, though there were valid grounds for adjudication of the review, the trial Court, without examining the same on merits, proceeded finally and passed the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of

2017 by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy.

5. Learned Senior Designated Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that, in the interest of justice, it is just and necessary to set aside the impugned order dated 14.11.2025 passed in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017 by the Principal District Judge, Sangareddy.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, contends that mere filing of a review application by the petitioner cannot be a ground for the trial Court not to proceed and pass orders in E.P. No. 37 of 2025 in O.S. No. 175 of 2017, in view of the fact that though the review had been filed in the year 2