AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri Palle Sriharinath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revision Petitioner, and Sri Nyayapathi Prashant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents.
The present C.R.P. is preferred with prayer seeking as under.
“...Pleased to Set aside the order dated 23.03.2026 in EA No.169/2025 in O.S.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy and restore EA No.119/2025 by directing the executing court to conduct full-fledged enquiry under Order XXI Rules 97-101 CPC and such other reliefs as deemed fit and pass such other order..."
The Revision Petitioner is the Claim Petitioner who had filed E.A.No.119 of 2025 under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC claiming an independent right, title and possession over the suit schedule property in Suit O.S.No.7 of 2016 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Sangareddy.
E.A.No.119 of 2025 had been filed seeking prayer as under:-
"...Pleased to declare the claim petitioner as the owner of the scheduled property and declare O.S.No.7 of 2016 is null and void in the interest of justice and enquiry."
PERUSED THE RECORD.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly puts forth the following submissions:
The petitioner was denied an opportunity to establish independent title, which is impermissible in law.
No full-fledged enquiry had been conducted prior to passing the impugned order.
A claim cannot be summarily rejected merely on the ground of a subsequent sale deed.
Doctrine of Lis pendens had been wrongly applied.
The Petitioner/Claimant asserted an independent title based on a prior agreement of Sale dated 26.08.2014, which fact was totally ignored by the lower Court.
The Petitioner's specific plea that the decree in O.S.No.7 of 2016 was obtained by fraud and collusion between decree holder and Judgment debtor had been totally ignored by the Executing Court.
The Executing Court exceeded in its Jurisdiction, and Pre-judged the subject issue.
The order impugned is violative of audi alteram partem as no opportunity was given to lead evidence, no issues were framed and no enquiry was conducted.
The Judgments relied upon by the Court do not apply to the facts of the present case since petitioner had pleaded fraud.
Rule 102 does not bar adjudication where fraud, prior agreement, or independent Rights are pleaded and the Court proceeded on the premise that Rule 102 bars the claim petition.
The Court failed to adjudicate all questions relating to right, title or interest.
Based on the aforesaid submissions learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that petitioner is entitled for grant of relief as prayed for in the present C.R.P.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents mainly puts forth the following submissions:
The petitioner is not entitled for grant of any relief in the present C.R.P.
The order impugned dated 23.03.2026 passed in E.A.No.169 of 2025 in E.A.No.119 of 2025 in E.P.No.17 of 2024 in O.S.No.7 of 2016 is an order passed in accordance to law, on merits, assigning due reasons, and hence warrants no interference.
The sale deed relied upon by the petitioner is illegal.
Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in the present CRP sought dismissal of the present CRP.
There is no dispute about the fact that the decree holder filed EP No.39 of 2018 for execution of a sale deed in his favour pursuant to the decree dated 31.10.2016. In O.S.No.7 of 2016 a sale deed bearing Document No. 1699 of 2024 was executed in his favour. The decree holder filed E.P.No.17 of 2024 under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC for delivery of possession of the property covered by the sale deed bearing Document No.1699 of 2024. After the date of filing of that E.P., the claim petitioner filed E.A.No.119 of 2025 under Order 21 Rule 58. Admittedly, the alleged sale deed was executed by the Judgment Debtor, in favour of the claim petitioner during the pendency of E.P.No.39 of 2018. Order XXI Rule 107 comes into play once the property is sold by Judgment Debtor during the pendency of the Execution Proceedings. The claim petitioner is none other than the son-in-law of the Judgment Debtor. In as much as the property was transferred to the claim petitioner during the pendency of the execution proceedings, the claim petition can be rejected without holding a detailed enquiry as prescribed under order XXI rule 107 of CPC. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the claim petitioner purchased the property from Judgment Debtor, who is his father-in-law, without the knowledge of the Execution Proceedings in E.P.No.39 of 2018. On the contrary, the inference that has to be drawn is that both Judgment Debtor, and Claim petitioner colluded and designedly entered into the sale transaction under the sale deed bearing document No.905 of 2023 to frustrate the Execution Proceedings by the Decree holder. The Executing Court, therefore, through a reasoned order, rightly rejected the claim petition without holding any enquiry on the claim petition.
This Court opines that there is no illegality, irregularity, or impropriety in the impugned order dated 23.03.2026 passed in E.A.No.169/2025 in E.A.No.119 of 2025 in E.P.No.17 of 2024 in O.S.No.7 of 2016 on the file of the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge at Sangareddy, hence the present C.R.P. is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Petition, shall stand closed.