P.Kamala Devi, III ADJ Court

1

In the Court of the III Additional District Judge, [FTC]Ananthapuramu

Present:- Smt P.Kamala Devi, Special Sessions Judge for trial of SCs & STs Cases –cum- VIII Additional District Judge Ananthapuramu FAC III Additional District Judge, [FTC]Ananthapuramu

Friday, the 1st day of April, 2022

EP 411/2016 in OS 123 of 2015

Between :

G.Subramanyam.…Petitioner/D.Hr.

and

Chinnam Damodar Naidu....Respondent/J.Dr.

This petition coming on 31.3.2022 for final hearing before me in the presence of Sri P.Guruprasad and Sri M.Kullayappa, Advocates for the petitioner/D.Hr., and of Sri B.Viswanath, Advocate for Respondent/J.Dr., this matter having stood over till this day for consideration, this Court made the following:-

O R D E R

This Execution Petition has been filed against the J.Dr., under Or.21, Rules 64 and 66 CPC to bring the E.P schedule property for sale in public auction in order to realise the E.P amount.

2.The case of decree holder as per the affidavit filed in support of the Execution Petition, in brief, is as follows:

He filed the suit for recovery of the amount against the J.Dr., and obtained decree on merits for Rs.15,24,264/- with interest and costs. The schedule property was also attached by this court in I.A.88/2015 in this suit [ O.S.123 of 2015 on 3.9.2015]. Insptie of several requests made by the D.Hr., the respondent has not paid the decreetal amount. Hence, he constrained to file this E.P.

3.J.Dr filed counter denying most of the allegations mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of E.P and submitted as follows.

The E.P schedule mentioned property is not correct and it is wrongly mentioned. D.Hr., obtained exparte decree against him by suppressing the facts before the court. Infact he filed the petition to set aside the exparte decree against the D.Hr., in O.S.123/2015 pending before this court and along with delay petition and it was numbered as I.A.656/2017 and it was posted to 4.10.2017 for filing counter. He has very good grounds to succeed in the suit. Since he filed the petition to set aside the exparte decree, 2 this E.P is not maintainable and it is liable to be dismissed. Hence, he prays to dismiss the E.P with costs.

4.Heard both sides. Perused the record. No witnesses are examined or no documents marked during the course of enquiry.

5.Now the point for consideration is “Whether the D.Hr can be permitted to proceed further in this EP?”

6.POINT::-

It is an admitted fact that the D.Hr., obtained decee against the J.Dr., for recovery of the suit amount along with interest and costs and J.Dr., did not pay the amount to the D.Hr., subsequent to the passing of decree. There is no dispute that the E.P. schedule property belongs to the J.Dr., Though it is the case of the J.Dr., that he filed the petition to set aside the exparte decree along with delay condoned petition, but the J.Dr., did not come forward and did not state about the stage of that petition for the reasons best known to him. More over, as seen from the docket orders in this E.P, it appears that compromise talks were going on in between both parties in this E.P and both parties requested the time for settling the compromise terms and dragging to proceed further in this E.P. So, it appears that this J.Dr., is willing to pay the E.P amount after compromise terms are settled between him and the D.Hr., That itself shows that this J.Dr., has no interest to proceed with delay condoned petition or set aside exparte decree petition said to be filed by him. So, in the light of the above mentioned circumstances, I am of the view that there are no tenable grounds not to proceed further in this E.P. Hence, all the objections raised in the counter filed by the J.Dr., are over ruled, the D.Hr., is permitted to proceed further in this E.P.

Accordingly, the point is answered.

7.In the result, the objections raised in the counter filed by J.Dr., are over ruled. D.Hr., is permitted to proceed further in this E.P. Issue Test warrant subject to payment of batta. Call on 02.05.2022.

Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and

pronounced by me in open Court this the 1st day of April, 2022.

FAC III Additional District Judge, [FTC] Ananthapuramu.

Appendix of evidence: Nil.

III ADJ

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0000875/2018 K.Narapa Reddy, 46 yrs. Vs Matam Somasekhar, Major

Date : 06-04-2022

Business: Dhr called absent No representation N.J Stamps not filed valuation certificate not filed E.P is dismissed for default Nature of Disposal : DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 06-04-2022 III Addl. District Judge

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0000556/2018 V.S.Venkatesh Guptha, 43 yrs, Vs Velpula Nagasekhar, 50 yrs,

Date : 28-02-2022

Business: Dhr called absent No representation cost not paid E.P is dismissed for default Nature of Disposal : DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 28-02-2022 III Addl. District Judge

In the Court of :III Addl. District Judge

Case No. :EP/0000556/2018 V.S.Venkatesh Guptha, 43 yrs, Vs Velpula Nagasekhar, 50 yrs,

Date : 28-02-2022

Business: Dhr called absent No representation cost not paid E.P is dismissed for default Nature of Disposal : DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT Disposal Date: 28-02-2022 III Addl. District Judge