CRP/141/2008 of Pothula Veera Krishna Rao, Vs Smt. Alluri Veera Venkata Naga Lakshmi Narasamamba, on 31 December 2009

ORDER:

The petitioners are Judgment Debtors (J.Drs) in E.P.No.5 of 2007.They filed E.A.No.445 of 2007 seeking a direction to first respondent(hereafter called, Decree Holder/D.Hr) to re-transfer ownership of suitschedule property and re-pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees tenthousand only) with interest at 12% to J.Drs. By an order, dated 27.12.2007,the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, J.Drs filed instant revisionpetition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Thoughin the Memorandum of revision, reference is not made to E.A.No.445 of2007, there is no dispute that J.Drs filed the revision only against the saidorder.

First respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement ofsale, dated 05.08.1999. The same being O.S.No.94 of 1992 was decreed bythe Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur on 28.08.2000. J.Drs’ appeal beingA.S.No.57 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Eluru wasdismissed on 05.08.2002. D.Hr then filed E.P.No.188 of 2000 and the Courtexecuted sale deed. In E.P., J.Dr contended that delivery of possessioncannot be ordered as there is no such decree and that a charge was createdin favour of a cooperative society. The objections were negatived.Aggrieved by which, they filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2004 before the District Court,which was dismissed on 02.03.2006. The C.R.P.No.3686 of 2006, which isfiled by them, was also dismissed by this Court on 30.08.2006. Yet again,they filed E.A.No.445 of 2007, which was dismissed by impugned order.

Learned counsel for petitioners/J.Drs submits that the impugnedorder directing delivery of possession is illegal and arbitrary. The lowerCourt has not given any reasons and therefore, is liable to be set aside. Inthe absence of any decree for delivery of possession, such an order cannotbe based by the Court below. Per contra,learned counsel for first respondent/D.Hr submits that when the appeal filed by J.Dr was dismissed,it was proper for the trial Court to execute the sale deed as well as orderdelivery of possession.

J.Dr filed present civil revision petition against docket order, dated27.12.2007 giving an impression that the E.A., was dismissed withoutreasoned order. A copy of the lower Court order running into seven pages isplaced before this Court and the said order contains reasons, and therefore,the plea that no reasons are given by the lower Court cannot be accepted.Insofar as other contentions are concerned, as rightly observed by Courtbelow, when the appeal filed by J.Dr was dismissed, even though the lowerCourt merged into the same, what is executable is the decree passed bytrial Court and therefore, the direction to deliver possession is sustainable.Further more, when the lower Court passed a detailed order, the petitionersapproached this Court misrepresenting that a docket order was passed. Onthis ground alone, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. Afterperusing the order of the Court below, this Court is convinced that there isno error in the impugned order.

The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordinglydismissed. No costs.

_______________

(V.V.S.RAO, J)