T. PARASAKTHI AND OTHER Vs. A. KOTHANDA RAMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petition has been filed by the petitioners/defendants, challenging the order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Dindigul in E.P.No.103 of 2013 in O.S.No.106 of 2008, dated 12.12.2013.

(2.) The petitioners in the revision petition are the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.106 of 2008. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.106 of 2008 for specific performance of a sale agreement, dated 12.09.2007 and in alternate, for return of money to the tune of Rs. 52,00,000/- paid by the plaintiff as agreement holder to the first defendant, who is the owner of the suit property as advance. The suit was decreed by granting relief to the respondent herein/plaintiff for refund of money, which was paid by him as advance. The decree reads as follows:

(3.) Since the money was paid by the petitioners to the respondent, the respondent/plaintiff filed an execution petition in E.P.No.103 of 2017 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 52,00,000/- and the cost, by attachment of the property, against which, a charge was created. This petition was opposed by the revision petitioner only on the ground that he has filed an appeal before this Court as against the Judgment and decree of the Trial Court and that filing the execution petition, during the pendency of the appeal is unsustainable in law. It is the further contention of the revision petitioner that only a charge was created in respect of the property and that unless the decree holder file a petition for passing of final decree, the charge decree cannot be executed. However, the Trial Court rejected the contention of the revision petitioner by stating that charge decree can be executed without obtaining a final decree to recover the amount as per the decree in the Suit by relying upon the judgement of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Devarathina Pardesiah by LRS v. State Bank of India, Kavali, reported in 2002(1)ALD 683 (reported in Indian Kanoon), wherein, it has been specifically held by the Andhra Pradesh High Court that there is no need to obtain a separate final decree under Order 34, Rule 15(2) C.P.C.