VELAGALA SIMHACHALAM Vs. KARAKA VARAHALAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 06-09-2005 passed in E.P. No. 35 of 2004 in O.S. No. 71 of 1981 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kothavalasa, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the execution petition.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this revision by the petitioner/decree holder in E.P. No. 35 of 2004 in O.S. No. 71 of 1981 are: Karaka Suri along with 4 others filed the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits against Karaka Varahalamma and Velagala Yerrayyamma in respect of suit schedule property. The suit came to be decreed on 20-7-1988 declaring that Velagala Simhachalam-2nd plaintiff is owner of the suit schedule property and that she is entitled to recover vacant possession of the same and also to mesne profits. The defendants filed a petition under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree dated 20-07-1988 passed in O.S. No. 71 of 1981. They also moved I.A. No. 762 of 1992 in O.S. No. 71 of 1981 to condone the delay of 336 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. The said application ended in dismissal on 28-06-1993. They assailed the order dated 28-06-1993 passed in I.A. No.762 of 1992 in O.S. No. 71 of 1981 by filing CRP No. 2202 of 2000. The said revision ended in dismissal on 25-07-2000. Velagala Simhachalam/2nd plaintiff filed E.P. No. 35 of 2004 under Order 21, Rule 11 CPC seeking delivery of possession of the properties through the process of Court. It appears Velagala Yerrayyamma died leaving behind Karaka Varahalamma as her sole legal heir. Karaka Varahalamma resisted the execution application by filling counter. The plea taken by Karaka Varahalamma in the execution petition is that the decree is barred by limitation and thereby it has become unenforceable. The executing Court considered the rival contentions of the parties and came to the conclusion that the E.P. has been filed after lapse of 12 years from the date of decree and thereby the decree has become unenforceable and accordingly, dismissed the E.P., by order dated 06-09-2005. The said order is assailed in this revision.

(3.) The CRP came to be admitted on 14-09-2007. The 1st respondent/J. Dr. No. 1 entered appearance through a counsel.