CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

R. Kanthamma and Others vs Boyapati Ravindra and Others

Andhra Pradesh High Court · Decided on 26 April 2002 · Citation: (2002) 6 ALT 253 : (2002) 2 AnWR 600 : (2003) 2 CivCC 655

HON’BLE JUDGES
B.S.A. Swamy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 21 Rule 22(1), Order 21 Rule 35
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
C.R.P. No. 386 of 2002
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 347 words

B.S.A. Swamy, J.—Aggrieved by the order of the senior Civil Judge, dated 23-1-2002 in E.P. No. 1/2002 in O.S.No.23/1986 ordering delivery of possession of the schedule property, the present revision is filed.

2.

This Court in its order dated 1-2-2002 called for the report of the Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle, as to how he could order delivery of possession of the property on 23-1-2002 having ordered notice in execution petition on 22-1-2002.

3.

In his report the Senior Civil Judge, Mandanapalle admitted that having ordered notice in O.E.P. No. 1/2002 under Order 21 Rule 22(b) of C.P.C., withdrew the order at the instance of the respondent and ordered delivery of possession of the property which is highly illegal.

4.

It is true that under the provisions of Civil Procedure code, if an execution petition is filed within two years from the date of decree, an option is given to the court either to give notice to the judgment-debtor or order delivery of the property. In this case, the court exercised its discretion and ordered notice in the execution petition. But the said order was withdrawn at the instance of the Decree Holder by observing that a long battle is going on for last 15 years. If the officer is conscious of delay that has taken place in executing the decree he would have ordered delivery of possession of the property without ordering notice. When once he exercised discretion and ordered notice, he is expected not to pass any orders without hearing the other side. Hence I hold that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity and it has to be set aside and accordingly it is set aside.

5.

The CRP is accordingly allowed and the matter is remanded to the Court below with a direction that the Court below shall dispose of the matter afresh after hearing both the parties. Since it is a very old case, the Court below shall start hearing the application immediately after vacation and pass orders in accordance with law within four weeks from the date of commencement of the hearing.