CRP/3747/2025 of Panchagiri Bikshapathi, Vs Sri Jillella Devender, on 17 October 2025

ORAL ORDER:

None appears for the petitioner.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is frled undel Article 227 of Constitution of tndia to set aside the proceedings r E.P.No. 170 of 2019 in O.S.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the le ,rmed Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parkal. l. Respondent is a Decree Holder. He has lled a suit in O.S.No.65 of 2016 against the petitioner her: n for specihc performance of agreement of sale dated 10.05.201( n respect of the suit schedule property. The same was decreed tn 09.05.2019. Respondent No.5 has filed an Execution Petition vir r E.P.No.170 of 2019 to execute the Decree and Judgment datec 09.05.2019 in O.S.No.65 of 2016. Petitioner filed the present rev sion seeking to set aside the proceedings in the said execution pet iion contending as follows (

a) That E.P.No.l70 of 2019 filed by the respondent/decree holder is contrary to law, facts, and probabilities of the case. The leamed Executing Court failed to appreciate the material aspects of the mafter, resulting in grave miscarriage ofjustice;

b) That the leamed trial Court has grossly erred in decreeing the suit in O.S.No.65 of 2016 by order dated 09.05.2019 without any cogent or reliable evidence to prove the alleged Agreement of Sale dated 10.05.2016 purportedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the respondent. In the absence of such material proof, the decree is legally t' n sustainable;

c) That the leamed trial Court further erred in granting a decree directing execution of a sale deed within 45 days in favour of the respondent eveir though such relief could only be sought through a properly instituted suit for specific performance of the alleged agreement of sale. The trial court, by allowing a relief outside the scope of the suit, committed a serious error of [aw;

I I I I

d) That the learned trial Court failed to pror ide sufEcient opportunity to the petitioner/defendant to frle a wri [en statement and contest the matter. The decree and judgment pr ssed ex-parte without giving the petitioner an opportunity of learing is in viotation of the principles of natural justice and Lre' therefore' vitiated;

e) That the leamed trial Court ened in pass r [l an ex parte decree without the production and proof of the alle 6 ed Agreement of Sale dafed 10.05.2016, which fomrs the very basri ; of the claim' In the absence of the said document, the decree suff: s from serious legal infirmiry and is liable to be set aside; and 0 That the learned trial Court firther erred in ' ntertaining the suit filed in the year 2016 and decreeing the said ri rit' which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the said court' Ttu decree passed without proper jurisdiction is null and void ab-inititt rnd liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

--A*;**="=

4. Perusal of the said'grounds of challenge makes it olear that petitioner is aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree in O.s.No.65 of 2016, dated Og.O5.2llg.Therefore, he has to take steps to challenge the same. lnstead, he has filed the present CRp to set aside the proceedings in the present E.p., on the aforesaid grounds.

5. On the aforesaid grounds, the petitioner can,t seek to set aside the proceedings in E.P. petitioner failed to make our any case to set aside the proceedings in the said E.p. Thus, this revision petition is misconceived and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Accordingly, this Civil Revision petition is dismissed. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. SD/. C, DEEPIKA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR IITRUECOPYII SECTION OFFICER

I I I li I I' To

The Principat Junior Civil JWg.,. parkal. (with records if any) ?;:33 looffi' Raootu e+rasta"r, eavocaie r6'dilii""'

I

HIGH COURT DATED:17t10/2025

ORAL ORDER

CRP.No.3747 of 2025 ? (-) 1 7 ii I lli?"j * ir1,J I: H

i4+o;- ( 7( 7z

I * c CIVIL REVISION PLTI fIoN IS DISMISSEI) Ia lab i I i I I I

I I l