D SATYANARAYANA RAO Vs. VASUDEV ASRANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order dated 22-2-1988 passed in E.P.No.25 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the learned trial Judge has held that the decree passed in favour of the petitioner was not an executable one.

(2.) The petitioner herein filed a suit O.S. No.3863 of 1980 before the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, for recovery of possession and mesne profits against the respondent-judgment-debtor and, on 24-10-1983, the same was decreed in favour of the petitioner herein. Thereafter, an application purported to be under Order XXI Rule 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed for delivery of possession of immovable property and for a sum of Rs.1,028.00 against the judgment-debtor No.1 and the schedule of property mentioned in the application. An objection was, however, raised by the judgment-debtor that the Execution Petition was not maintainable. The learned executing Court concurred with the said contention of the judgment-debtor and in support thereof relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Motor General Traders vs. State of A.P.

(3.) Mr. Ranganadham, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the learned Executing Court went wrong in passing the impugned order insofar as it had no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree. The learned Counsel would contend that the question, which had been gone into as an issue in the suit, is as to whether the judgment-debtor - defendant was in wrongful occupation of the suit schedule property or not could not have been reopened. The learned Counsel would urge that in this view of the matter the impugned judgment must be set aside. In support of the said contention, reliance has been placed on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Union Bank vs. M.C. Ankaiah.