##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT

HYDERABAD

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY

Civil Revision Petition No.4420 of 2025

Date: 27.02.2026

Between:

Mr.V.Vikram …Petitioner

AND

Mr.N.Anjaneyulu and others.

…Respondents

ORDER

(per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.P.Venkanna, learned counsel for the petitioner.

Perused the record.

2. The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed

assailing the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in E.A.No.378 of 2023

in E.P.No.48 of 2017 in O.S.No.2229 of 2006.

3. Vide the said order the Court has allowed the petition

under Sections 141 and 153 r/w Order VI under Rule 17 C.P.C.

praying to permit the petitioner to amend the E.P.No.48 of 2017 in

the interest of justice.

2

4. The perusal of the pleadings would go to show that

O.S.No.2229 of 2006 filed by the decree holder stood allowed

ordering for recovery of sum of Rs.5,45,000/- with accrued interest

on the same vide judgment and decree dated 11.08.2011. By filing

the Execution Petition he claimed amount was Rs.7,59,978/- with

inclusive of interest. Meanwhile, the judgment and decree were

subjected to challenge in CCCA No.21 of 2013 which stood partly

allowed on 20.10.2023 and the decree amount has been calculated

on the principal amount of Rs.3,20,000/- with interest @ 6% per

annum from 15.12.2003 till realization. The decree holder

thereafter filed E.A.No.378 of 2023 seeking for the amendment of

Execution Proceedings in terms of the order passed by the First

Appellate Court in the CCCA.No.21 of 2013 which stood decided

on 20.10.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once when

the decree stands modified by the Appellate Court, the earlier

execution proceeding as such would not be sustainable on account

of the inoperative judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

3

Learned counsel would rely on the decision of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in 2000 (6) SCC 359.

6. However, perusal of the records particularly the judgment

cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner would only indicate

that the order passed by the Superior Forum either setting aside the

judgment and decree or modifying the same, the order of the

Superior Court would gets merged with the original judgment and

decree passed by the trial Court. That by itself would go to

establish that henceforth the Execution Proceedings pending would

be so far as the judgment and decree which stood modified by the

Superior / Appellate Forum.

7. In the instant case also all that the decree holder has

prayed for through the E.A. is for amending the pleadings in the

E.P so far as the modification made in the judgment and decree and

the amount to be recovered against the judgment debtor.

8. This Court does not find any illegality on the part of

Execution Court in allowing the E.A.No.378 of 2023 vide the

impugned order dated 21.11.2025.

4

9. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of

merits and accordingly stands dismissed.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,

shall stand closed.

__________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J

27.02.2026

mrm