Telangana High Court
CRP/5117/2014 of P.NARSIMHA REDDY Vs MODEM LINGAMAIAH (Died per L.Rs) on 31 December 2014
SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.5117 of 2014 Dated 31st December, 2014 Between: P.Narsimha Reddy …Petitioner And Modem Lingamaiah (died per LRs) and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Resu Mahender Reddy Counsel for the
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDYCivil Revision Petition No.5117 of 2014
Between:
Dated 31stDecember, 2014
P.Narsimha Reddy
And
…Petitioner
Modem Lingamaiah (died per LRs) and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri Resu Mahender Reddy Counsel for the respondents: ---- The Court made the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
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:
This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 22.12.2014, inE.P.No.62 of 2014 in O.S.No.142 of 1990, on the file of the learnedPrincipal Junior Civil judge, Ranga Reddy District.
The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.142 of 1990 (thelearned counsel for the petitioner has stated that suit number is wronglymentioned, while its correct number is O.S.No.148 of 1990). The suitfiled by respondent Nos.2 and 3 for declaration of title and recovery ofpossession was dismissed by the trial Court. However, the lowerappellate Court has decreed the suit in the appeal filed by respondentNos.2 and 3. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, thepetitioner has filed a second appeal which was also dismissed by thisCourt. As these judgments were confirmed by the Supreme Court in acivil appeal, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed EP seeking execution of thedecree. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit, wherein he has raisedan objection that the EP schedule property does not contain theboundaries. The lower Court has, however, rejected the said objection and allowed the EP by the order under revision.
At the hearing, it is not disputed that the schedule mentioned in theEP is the same as mentioned in the suit. When the petitioner failed tosatisfy this Court and the Supreme Court to reverse the decree on theground of absence of boundaries, such an objection cannot beconsidered as germane in the EP. Therefore, the lower Court has rightlydismissed the EP.
Hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of thelower Court and accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition,C.R.P.M.P.No.6927 of 2014 shall stand disposed of as infructuous.
31[st] December, 2014VGB
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J