THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1946 of 2019

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated

31.10.2018 passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in E.A.No.10 of 2018 in E.P.No.05 of 2011 in O.S.No.163 of 2000, wherein the present EA was filed by the decree holder under section 39 of CPC seeking transfer of decree.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff decree holder filed the suit against the Judgement Debtor/defendant No.1 and 2 seeking recovery of sum of Rs.19,00,000/- and the same was decreed by the learned I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, jointly and severally at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization and further directed the Judgement Debtor to pay a sum of Rs.21,428/- towards the costs of suit to the petitioner/decree holder.

3. After the decree, the petitioners filed the present E.P.No.5 of 2011, dated 12.06.2018 against the Judgement Debtors praying attachment of immovable property of Judgement Debtor No.2 being 50% share in house bearing No.1- 10-25/1, Street no.2, Ashok Nagar, contending that, as per the information shared by their counsel, the said property was situated in local limits of Hyderabad, under the territorial jurisdiction of City Civil Court, Hyderabad and it is not within the jurisdiction of the I-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, as such prayed to transfer the decree to the Court having territorial jurisdiction to execute the attachment and sale of property. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the counter was also filed by the Judgement Debtor, but the learned I-Additional District Judge has passed the docket order stating that EA.No.10 of 2018 is not maintainable since the E.P.No.5 of 2011 was closed.

4. The said order which is assailed before this Court under the Civil Revision Petition was on the ground that the learned Judge did not consider the contentions raised by the petitioners and also failed to take into account the fact that the respondents had also field their counter. Further, since the execution orders could not be passed by the learned I-Additional District Judge as the property is situated within the jurisdiction of the City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the learned judge ought to have allowed the application. It is also further contended that, though counters were filed on 30.08.2018 and the matter was partly heard on 18.09.2018 and objections were raised by the respondent with regard to the non-filing of the petition for re- opening. A petition under provision of section 151 seeking to reopening of the EP was also filed vide E.A.No.38 of 2018, dated 12.10.2018, and the respondent sought time for filing counters therein.

5. It is also contended that the learned I-Additional District Judge did not appreciate the fact that there was a pending application for transfer of EP and that the EP was closed without even considering the contentions raised by both the parties.

6. On perusal of the order passed by the learned I-

Additional District Judge, on the face of it, the order appears very cryptic and without any reasons cited. It is borne out from the record that the petitioners had filed a detailed affidavit citing the reasons for seeking transfer of the decree to the Court which has jurisdiction where the property is situated. It is also not in dispute that the counters were filed. The learned Judge without considering or without appreciating the entire pleadings and contentions of both the parties and without applying his judicial mind, passed a very cryptic order. Though it is specifically contended by the learned counsel for the Judgement debtor that even on the said date a fresh application was filed by the petitioner, and even the said aspects were not been considered. It appears that no opportunity was given to either party to place their contentions. Prima facie, o