THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE RENUKA YARA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3326 of 2024

ORDER:

Heard Sri Suresh Shiv Sagar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/decree holder and Sri Palanati Lakshman, learned counsel for the respondent/claim petitioner. Perused the record.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed seeking expeditious disposal of the claim petition in E.A. No. 5 of 2022 (old E.A. No. 84 of 2018) in E.P. No. 239 of 2022 (old E.P. No. 10 of 2012) pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

3. Both the learned counsel have narrated the history of filing of a suit for partition, passing of preliminary decree and passing of final decree in O.S. No. 183 of 1990. Seeking Execution thereof, the E.P. No. 10 was filed in the year 2012. Pending E.P., in the year 2018, claim petition was filed. In the said claim petition, petitioner No.2 herein filed a petition i.e., E.A. No. 21 of 2019 under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to strike off respondent Nos.2 to 14 and the said petition was allowed on 02.07.2019. The said order was challenged by way of C.R.P.No.2637 of 2019. The C.R.P. was dismissed vide order dated 02.08.2019. Aggrieved by the same, a review petition was preferred vide I.A.No.4 of 2022 in C.R.P.No.2637 of 2019. The review petition i.e., I.A. No. 4 of 2022 was allowed on 23.11.2023 and respondent No.2 was ordered to be added as respondent in the claim petition. Currently, respondent No.2 is added as a party respondent in the claim petition i.e., E.A.No.5 of 2022 (old E.A. No. 84 of 2018). There are 14 witnesses who have filed their chief affidavits and they have to be cross-examined.

4. On one hand, learned counsel for the revision petitioner/decree holder submitted that his client is unable to enjoy the fruits of the decree in spite of getting a final decree way back in the year 2012. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent herein/claim petitioner would submit that the blame for delay cannot be attributed to the respondent herein as the E.P.No.10 was filed in the year 2012 and the claim petition was filed in the year 2018. Ever since filing of the claim petition on account of striking off respondent No.2, there was delay in prosecuting the Civil Revision Petition i.e., C.R.P. No. 2637 of 2019 and the review petition i.e., I.A. No. 4 of 2022.

5. In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the onus for the delay cannot be completely attributed to the respondent herein/claim petitioner. It is also noted that a decree passed in the year 2012 remains unexecuted even in the year 2025. Since, there are 14 witnesses to be cross examined, this Court is not inclined to fix the time frame of two (02) months for disposal of the claim petition in E.A. No. 5 of 2022 (old E.A. No. 84 of 2018) in E.P. No. 239 of 2022 (old E.P. No. 10 of 2012) pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District.

6. At this juncture, both the parties agreed that they will co-operate in disposal of the claim petition in E.A. No. 5 of 2022 (old E.A. No. 84 of 2018) in E.P. No. 239 of 2022 (old E.P. No. 10 of 2012) pending on the file of learned Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, at the earliest.

7. With the aforementioned observation, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kukatpally, Medchal Malkajgiri District, to dispose of the claim petition in E.A. No. 5 of 2022 (old E.A. No. 84 of 2018) in E.P. No. 239 of 2022 (old E.P. No. 10 of 2012), within eight (08) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

___________________ RENUKA YARA, J Date: 07.10.2025 Nit/gms