Telangana High Court
CRP/1552/2011 of P.Venkata Ramanamma , Indira Devi, (Died) Vs S.P. Eswar Rao, on 30 December 2011
SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP No.1552 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 28-3-2011 passed in EA No.148 of 2010 in EA No.74 of 2009 in EA No.459 of 2005
CRP No.1552 of 2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counselfor the 1[st] respondent.
2. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 28-3-2011 passedin EA No.148 of 2010 in EA No.74 of 2009 in EA No.459 of 2005 in EP No.88of 1997 in OS No.497 of 1993 by the I Jr. Civil Judge, City Civil Court,Secunderabad. The defendants in the suit are the revision petitionersherein. The 1[st] respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filedthe suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 31-7-1967 andthe same was decreed on 4-9-1995 and it became final. Since the defendantsfailed to execute the sale deed, on a petition being filed by the plaintiff, theCourt executed the sale deed on 21-2-1998. The plaintiff filed the EA 228 of1999 for delivery of possession which was dismissed by the Court below,against which the matter was carried to this Court and this Court in CRPNo.1854 of 2000 allowed the case. Thereafter the plaintiff filed applicationsseeking delivery of possession of the plot in question. The presentapplication is filed under Section 151 CPC seeking modification of the earlierorder passed. The dispute is with regard to the identification of the plot inquestion. Under those circumstances, the order of the Court belowappointing an advocate commissioner to give effect to the terms of the decreeand delivery possession of the plot in questions does not warrant any interfere by this Court. The decision in BRAHMDEO CHAUDHARY vs.RISHIKESH PRASAD JAISWAL (AIR 1997 SC 856) relied on by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case as in thiscase the dispute is with regard to the identification of the plot in question. Thecivil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, at the admissionstage itself.
__________________________
Ghulam Mohammed, J
Dated: 26-7-2011Nrg