THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3339 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-

DHrs., aggrieved by the docket order dated 06.08.2025 passed in E.P.No.51 of 2014 in I.A.No.998 of 1999 in O.S.No.232 of

1986 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an execution petition vide E.P. No.51 of 2014 in O.S.No.232 of 1986. The original suit was decreed on 28.09.1996. Aggrieved by the same, the JDRs preferred first appeal vide A.S.No.287 of 2014, it was dismissed on 16.08.2023. Subsequently, they preferred a second appeal vide S.A. No. 530 of 2023, which was also dismissed on 05.11.2024. As a result, the judgment and decree of the trial Court attained finality. Following this, the trial Court issued an execution warrant on 09.04.2025 to the Field Assistant for delivery of possession of the land to the DHrs in E.P. No.51 of 2014, arising out of I.A. No.998 of 1999 in O.S. No.232 of 1986. The Field Assistant filed a report stating that he had submitted a letter to the Municipal Commissioner on 29.04.2025, requesting measurement and identification of the land mentioned in the warrant. Another letter was sent from their office on 12.05.2025. On 08.05.2025, the Field Assistant, Mandal Surveyor from the Tahsil Office, Bainsa, and the DHr visited the site with police protection. However, the Mandal Surveyor from Bhainsa was unable to comprehend the situation and stated that he would issue another letter to the Field Assistant. Based on the above report, the trial Court, on 06.08.2025, dismissed the Execution Petition stating that the warrant was returned unexecuted. The report submitted by the Bailiff, along with the letter from the Commissioner of Bhainsa Municipality, indicated that there are numerous residential houses and commercial complexes belonging to third parties situated in Item No.4 of the suit schedule property in Survey No. 354 of Bhainsa Town. Due to the presence of these third-party structures, the identification of the specific property mentioned in the warrant was deemed not possible. Recording these findings, the Execution Petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

3. Heard Sri G. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit schedule includes Items III, IV, and V, and the petitioners are entitled to possession of all these properties. The execution warrant was issued in Form-11 for Items III to V. However, the trial Court dismissed the Execution Petition solely on the ground that the property in Survey No. 354 (Item No.IV) was not available due to the presence of third-party residential and commercial structures. The trial Court failed to consider the other schedule properties and dismissed the E.P. without adjudicating the issue in its entirety. Therefore, he prayed that the docket order dated 06.08.2025 be set aside.

5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that E.P. No. 51 of 2014 was filed for three schedule properties i.e., Items III, IV, and V. However, the order of the trial Court does not contain any discussion regarding Items III and V and summarily dismissed the E.P. based only on the status of Item IV and in view of the dismissal of E.A.No.23 of 2025, which is not in accordance with law. Accordingly, the docket order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the trial Court is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh disposal. The trial Court is directed to decide the matter on merits, in accordance with law, after considering the report of the Field Assistant and the status of all schedule properties.

6. With the above directions, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions p