MIR IBRAHIM ALL Vs. INAYATH ALL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioners are the petitioners in E.P. No.87 of 1991 in O.S. No.1641 of 1985 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad dated 10-11-1995.

(2.) The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.1641 of 1985, filed E.P. No.87 of 1991 under Order 21 Rule 34 C.P.C. seeking a direction to the judgment-debtor to execute a registered deed of reconveyance relating to premises bearing No.17-6-482 Jakeer Hussain Lane, Outside Dabeerpura, Hyderabad. The respondent judgment- debtor had filed a counter and had opposed the matter and the learned VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad by order dated 10-11-1995 had dismissed the execution petition as not maintainable. Aggrieved by the same the petitioners-decreeholders-plaintiffs had preferred the present civil revision petition.

(3.) Ms. Balarani, learned Counsel for the petitioners had submitted that the decree dated 7-12-1988 in O.S. No.1641 of 1985 is no doubt an ex parte decree but however an ex parte decree also is a decree unless it is set aside. Apart from it, it was also brought to my notice that the respondent judgment-debtor defendant filed an application LA. No.1163 of 1992 to condone the delay and also requested for setting aside the said ex parte decree and the said application was dismissed on 4-5-1984 and aggrieved by the same the fespondent preferred Civil Revision Petition No.2265 of 1995 and the same was dismissed by this Hon'ble Court. Thus, the decree passed by the Court below became final. Ms. Balarani, learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the executing Court while executing the decree cannot go behind the decree except in exceptional circumstances. It was further submitted that the reasoning given by the Court below in arriving at the conclusion that the execution petition is not maintainable and the decree is void and unenforceable are all unsustainable observations and the very approach of the Court below is totally erroneous. It was also further contended that it is not a case where the Court has no jurisdiction to pass the decree and hence the executing Court had totally erred in coming to the conclusion that the execution petition itself is not maintainable. It was further contended that the discussion relating to Order 14 Rule 2 C.P.C. and the non-recording of reasons by the Court below are also unsustainable and those observations are irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the maintainability or otherwise of the execution petition.