Extention of time for giving physical possession under Sec.148 CPC - dismissed. The petitioner/judgment debtor in E.P.No.242 of 2017 filed E.A.No.218 of 2020 under Section 148 r/w 151 of CPC on 11.09.2020 praying the executing court to grant time for a further period of three months from the date of filing of the petition for removal of the machinery. Even according to the relief sought by the petitioner/judgment debtor, the time sought for removal of the machinery is going to be expired very shortly. However, the executing court, having recorded the contentions of the both sides and the material facts in which the different orders were passed by the executing court in E.P.No.242 of 2017 for delivery of property and having considered for extension of time to vacate the premises, came to a conclusion that the Judgment debtor is filing petitions one after the another without any valid reasons, in spite of sufferance of a decree in the suit which has attained finality. Accordingly, the executing court by way of the common order, dated 03.11.2020 dismissed the E.A.No.218 of 2020 in E.P.No.242 of 2017 in O.S No.119 of 2017 with costs by allowing the E.A.No.224 of 2020 in E.A.No.195 of 2020 in E.A.No.47 of 2020 in E.P.No.242 of 2017 in O.S.No.119 of 2017 filed by the petitioner/decree holder

Extention of time for giving physical possession under Sec.148 CPC - dismissed.

The petitioner/judgment debtor in E.P.No.242 of 2017 filed E.A.No.218 of 2020 under Section 148 r/w 151 of CPC on 11.09.2020 praying the executing court to grant time for a further period of three months from the date of filing of the petition for removal of the machinery. Even according to the relief sought by the petitioner/judgment debtor, the time sought for removal of the machinery is going to be expired very shortly. However, the executing court, having recorded the contentions of the both sides and the material facts in which the different orders were passed by the executing court in E.P.No.242 of 2017 for delivery of property and having considered for extension of time to vacate the premises, came to a conclusion that the Judgment debtor is filing petitions one after the another without any valid reasons, in spite of sufferance of a decree in the suit which has attained finality. Accordingly, the executing court by way of the common order, dated 03.11.2020 dismissed the E.A.No.218 of 2020 in E.P.No.242 of 2017 in O.S No.119 of 2017 with costs by allowing the E.A.No.224 of 2020 in E.A.No.195 of 2020 in E.A.No.47 of 2020 in E.P.No.242 of 2017 in O.S.No.119 of 2017 filed by the petitioner/decree holder

AP HIGH COURT 

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs.1177 and 1181 of 2020

Sri Suresh Chandra Narisetty
Versus

Sri Vurimi Venkata Narasimha Murthy,

COMMON ORDER:

 The present Civil Revision Petitions arise against the orders in

E.A.No.218 of 2020 in E.P.No.242 of 2017 in O.S No.119 of 2017 and

E.A.No.224 of 2020 in E.A.No.195 of 2020 in E.A.No.47 of 2020 in

E.P.No.242 of 2017 in O.S.No.119 of 2017 respectively on the file of

the Principal Senior Civil Judge at Gajuwaka.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

counsel for the respondent in both the Revisions.

3. The petitioner herein is the Judgment debtor and the

respondent herein is the decree holder in E.P.No.242 of 2017 in

O.S.No.119 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge,

Gajuwaka. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, vide order,

dated 21.10.2017, disposed of the said E.P.No.242 of 2017 as follows:

“In the result, the petition is disposed of with a direction

that the respondent/Judgement debtor shall complete the

removal of his machinery lying in the petition schedule

premises of the petitioner/decree holder within three months

from the date of this order and to hand over the vacant

possession of the same to the petitioner/decree holder and

that the petitioner/decree holder shall not cause any

obstruction to the respondent/judgment debtor while

removing the machinery from the petition schedule premises.

Issue delivery warrant on payment of process accordingly.”

4. The respondent/decree holder in E.P.No.242 of 2017 filed

E.A.No.224 of 2020 in E.A.No.195 of 2020 in E.A.No.47 of 2020 under 

2

Section 151 of CPC praying the executing court to effect the physical

vacant possession of the petition schedule property to the

petitioner/decree holder. The petitioner/judgment debtor in

E.P.No.242 of 2017 filed E.A.No.218 of 2020 under Section 148 r/w

151 of CPC on 11.09.2020 praying the executing court to grant time

for a further period of three months from the date of filing of the

petition for removal of the machinery. Even according to the relief

sought by the petitioner/judgment debtor, the time sought for

removal of the machinery is going to be expired very shortly.

However, the executing court, having recorded the contentions of the

both sides and the material facts in which the different orders were

passed by the executing court in E.P.No.242 of 2017 for delivery of

property and having considered for extension of time to vacate the

premises, came to a conclusion that the Judgment debtor is filing

petitions one after the another without any valid reasons, in spite of

sufferance of a decree in the suit which has attained finality.

Accordingly, the executing court by way of the common order, dated

03.11.2020 dismissed the E.A.No.218 of 2020 in E.P.No.242 of 2017

in O.S No.119 of 2017 with costs by allowing the E.A.No.224 of 2020

in E.A.No.195 of 2020 in E.A.No.47 of 2020 in E.P.No.242 of 2017 in

O.S.No.119 of 2017 filed by the petitioner/decree holder.

5. On perusal of the common order passed by the executing court

and having regard to the facts and circumstances, this Court does not

find any merit in the present Civil Revision Petitions as the judgment

debtor vacated the suit schedule property and undertook to remove

the machinery as stated supra and as such, they are liable to be

dismissed. 

3

Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition Nos.1177 of 2020 and

1181 of 2020 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs of the

Civil Revision Petitions.

 As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any,

pending in the Civil Revision Petitions shall stand closed.

_______________________________

JUSTICE B.KRISHNA MOHAN

02.12.2020

Note: Furnish CC by 10.12.2020

 B/o

 mp