IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PET IT ION No. 65 OF 2026 Date:06-03-2026 Between K. Nagashilpa …Petitioner and Mohd. Ibrahim Ali and others ….Respondents T his Court passed the following

ORDER

Heard Sri Peri Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. Dheeraj Reddy, learned counsel for respondents.

2.The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the docket order dated 18.12.2025 passed in E.P.No.176 of 2024 in O.S.No.69 of 2021 by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge – cum – Family Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri District at Malkajgiri.

3. The petitioner – plaintiff had filed a suit vide O.S.No.69 of

2021 against the respondents- defendants seeking specific performance of agreement of sale dated 16.08.2020. Vide judgment and decree dated 18.09.2024, learned trial Court decreed the said suit directing 1^st respondent herein – 1^st defendant to execute registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within two months from the date of the said judgment at the expenses of the plaintiff, failing which, the plaintiff will be entitled to have sale deed executed through the process of Court.

4. 1^st respondent – 1^st defendant did not prefer any appeal challenging the said judgment. Thus, it attained finality. Even then, 1^st defendant did not execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. Therefore, she has filed E.P.No.176 of 2024 against the respondents. Vide docket order dated 08.01.2025, learned Executing Court held that the petitioner herein -D.Hr. has filed 30 different sale deeds in the names of different individuals, when those sale deeds were to be put up for approval before the Presiding Officer, Office of the trial Court noticed that the draft sale deeds were not tallying with the decree schedule property and the E.P. Scheduled property. Therefore, the trial Court again directed 1^st defendant to take appropriate steps and in the meanwhile, the petitioner herein - D.Hr. has approached this Court by filing revision vide CRP No.4314 of 2025. Vide order dated 08.12.2025, this Court directed the Executing Court, to dispose of the said EP, within two months from the date of receipt of the order. 5. In the impugned order, it is further held that the learned counsel for the petitioner herein - D.Hr. in the presence of counsel of the 1^st defendant - J.Dr. requested the trial Court to execute 30 different sale deeds in respect of different individuals. After having gone through the judgment and decree in O.S.No.69 of 2021, EP schedule property is as shown above, the Executing Court is not expected to go beyond the scope of decree and as such, cannot venture to execute the sale deeds to the convenience of D.Hr. and J.Dr. No.1 as suggested by the D.Hr. If J.Dr. No.1 is ready to execute in compliance of the decree, it is to the understanding of both the parties to the E.P. In view of the above circumstances, learned Executing Court directed the D.Hr. to file proper draft sale deeds by the next date in terms of the decree or else the E.P. shall stand closed.

6. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision.

7. As discussed supra, in the impugned docket order, the learned Executing Court specifically observed that the petitioner herein – D.Hr. has submitted 30 different draft sale deeds in the names of different individuals and E.P. schedule property and the schedule of the property mentioned in the draft sale deeds are different. But according to the learned counsel, the petitioner has submitted 30 draft sale deeds in the name of the petitioner herein – D.Hr. Therefore, the aforesaid observation made by the Executing Court is contrary to the record.

8. In the light of the said submission, vide order dated

06.02.2026, this Court directed the registry to call for the original record in E.P. and accordingly, the original record was called for. Perused the original record. The petition