HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 890 of 2023 Date: 27.04.2026 Between:

Boddu Balaram …. Petitioner AND Ramshetti Laxminarsaiah …. Respondent

ORDER

This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the order dated 23.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge Cum Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Manthani in E.P. No. 3 of 2016 in O.S.No.51 of 2001 and by the impugned order, the Executing Court issued warrant of delivery of the schedule of property in favour of the Respondent/Decree holder against the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor on payment of process.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as per their status before the Executing Court.

BRIEF FACTS

3. The factual backdrop to the present revision is as follows:

The Decree Holder/plaintiff had earlier instituted O.S. No.

51 of 2001 against the present Judgment Debtor/defendant for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed on 30.11.2010 in favour of the Decree Holder, declaring him as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and directing the Judgment Debtor to hand over actual physical possession the same to the Decree Holder and to put him in lawful possession. It is further submitted that the Decree Holder has filed the Executing Petition No.3 of 2016 under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking recovery of possession of the schedule property by executing the decree against the Judgment Debtor. Pursuant to the filing of the Execution Petition, the Executing Court, issued a warrant for delivery of possession of the schedule property in favour of the Respondent/Decree Holder against the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor on payment of process, for effectuating the decree for recovery of possession. Aggrieved thereby, the Judgment Debtor has approached this Court by way of the present Revision.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES:

a) Submissions on behalf of the petitioner/

Judgment Debtor:

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Executing Court failed to consider the report of the Advocate Commissioner marked as Ex. R1, wherein it was specifically stated that the suit schedule property is not identifiable. The finding of the Executing Court that the petitioner had not taken such a plea in the suit and therefore, cannot raise the same in execution proceedings is legally untenable, as an objection relating to the identity of the property can validly be raised even at the stage of execution.

5. It is further submitted that the Executing Court, being empowered under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code to decide all questions arising between the parties to the suit relating to execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, ought to have adjudicated the said objection. The observation that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and therefore, cannot decide the objection as to identity of the property, is erroneous and unsustainable in law.

b) Submissions on behalf of the respondent/

Decree Holder:

6. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder submits that he had instituted O.S. No. 51 of 2001 against the Petitioner/Judgment Debtor seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property, and the said suit was decreed on 30.11.2010 in his favour, declaring him as the owner of the suit schedule property and directing the Judgment Debtor to hand over actual physical possession thereof. It is further contended that the Judgment Debtor preferred A.S. No. 1 of 2011 challenging the said Judgment and Decree; however, the said appeal was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 23.09.2011, thereby confirming the decree passed in O.S. No. 51 of 2001. As no Second Appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble High Court, the decree date