Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C.- It is not known when the third hut came into existence. The decree speaks of only two huts and as seen from the impugned order, two huts were removed and vacant possession was delivered and the E.P. was terminated. The execution of the decree was, therefore, in consonance with the terms of the decree. In the event the 2nd petitioner has any grievance, it is open to him to get the decree amended suitably. He cannot, however, assail the impugned order, whereunder the delivery of the property was recorded in terms of the decree. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with liberty as stated above to the 2nd petitioner to get the decree amended suitably or avail other remedies, if any, available under law in respect of the third hut. There shall be no order as to costs.

CRP 4460 / 2012

null null / null

PETITIONER RESPONDENT MARADANA SURYANAYARANA   VS G.MAHALAKSHMI& ORS PET.ADV. : SURESH KUMAR RESP.ADV. :  SUBJECT: ORDER 21 C.P.C. DISTRICT:  VIZIANAGARAM

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4460 OF 2012

ORDER:

          This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 16.08.1996, in E.P.No.28 of 1994 in O.S.No.115 of 1989 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Cheepurupalli, whereunder the E.P. filed by the original petitioner/plaintiff, under Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C., seeking delivery of vacant possession of the E.P. schedule property, was ordered and the E.P. was terminated.

2.       Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents.

3.       The original petitioner obtained a decree against the respondents for delivery of possession in O.S.No.115 of 1989. He filed E.P.No.28 of 1994 seeking execution of the decree, dated 17.10.1994. The decree is specifically directing defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to vacate the two sheds constructed in the suit site and deliver vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff. Accordingly, it is stated that the Amin has removed the two sheds and delivered vacant possession to the plaintiff. The grievance of the petitioners is that the defendants have put up a third hut and the Amin ought to have removed the said hut also.

4.       As seen from the impugned order, in fact the third hut was also removed initially and subsequently, the Amin filed another report stating that by mistake he got the third hut removed and that it was reconstructed immediately. It is not known when the third hut came into existence. The decree speaks of only two huts and as seen from the impugned order, two huts were removed and vacant possession was delivered and the E.P. was terminated. The execution of the decree was, therefore, in consonance with the terms of the decree. In the event the 2^nd petitioner has any grievance, it is open to him to get the decree amended suitably. He cannot, however, assail the impugned order, whereunder the delivery of the property was recorded in terms of the decree.

5.       Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with liberty as stated above to the 2^nd petitioner to get the decree amended suitably or avail other remedies, if any, available under law in respect of the third hut. There shall be no order as to costs.

6.       Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.

         

____________________

G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J

August 29, 2012

MD

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4460 OF 2012

August 29, 2012

MD