AP HIGH COURT ; AMARAVATHI;
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1456 of 2021
Pilli Mangavathi,
Versus
Guthula Suryanarayana,
ORDER:-
This civil revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order in
E.P.No.7 of 2018 in O.S.No.40 of 2014 dated 09.11.2021 of the
Court of learned IV Additional District Judge, Tanuku, West
Godavari District.
2. Heard Sri Srinivas Mallampalli, learned counsel for the
petitioners who are the judgment debtors in the above execution
petition.
3. A mortgage decree is pending execution in the executing
court for realization of Rs.14,20,710/- apart from E.P. costs. An
extent of un-divided ½ share in Ac.1-80 cents comprised in
different survey numbers is brought for sale in terms of Order
XXI Rules 64 and 66 CPC. At the stage when notices were
served to the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC, an
objection was raised on behalf of the petitioners through the 3rd
petitioner, the executing court had passed the impugned order
rejecting those objections and directed the decree holder to file
sale papers and encumbrance certificate to process further.
4. It is now contended by learned counsel for the petitioners
that the properties sought for sale in the execution proceedings
is more extent than what was mortgaged and if the proposed
sale goes on, he and other petitioners would loose certain extent
of about Ac.0-36 cents. Learned counsel for the petitioners has
also brought to the notice of this court the proceedings in
partition suit O.S.No.307 of 2014 on the file of the court of
2
Senior Civil Judge, Tanuku to which the 1st respondent / D.Hr
is also a party. As per the contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners, this partition suit is at the stage of passing final
decree where a commissioner was also appointed, whose report
reflected that the E.P. Schedule property is a part of the land
covering Ac.2-16 cents.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further contended that
in view of pendency of the proceedings in the partition suit, the
petitioners would suffer immense lose if the executing court
proceeds with the sale of the E.P. schedule property.
6. Apparently, similar objections were raised before the
executing court and which were over-ruled by a reasoned
order. As rightly observed by the executing court if, there is any
dispute relating to identity of the property that was the subject
matter of the mortgage and basing on which the mortgage suit
was also laid, the petitioners herein should have raised such
objection at that stage. The executing court also found that no
material was placed before it in support of the contentions of the
petitioners.
7. When such are the circumstances that were considered
correctly by the executing court, this civil revision petition as
such cannot lie. There is no impropriety or irregularity requiring
consideration of this court in terms of Article 227 of the
Constitution of India. The order sought to be revised is not
affecting the finality in determination of the matter. No
justification or merit is found in the cause set out by the
petitioners now.
3
8. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed at the
admission stage. No costs.
9. The petitioners are at liberty to pursue their remedies if
they are advised to do so in appropriate proceedings.
All pending petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________________
JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
Date : 28.12.2021
KA
4
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.VENKATA RAMANA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1456 of 2021
Date : 28.12.2021
KA
