A RAMESH Vs. CHINTALA PRABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner who is the Judgment-Debtor in E.P.No. 12 of 1997 in O.S.No. 431 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsiff at Karimnagar, filed the present revision, aggrieved by the order of issuing warrant of delivery of possession against him on 22-10-98. For the purpose of deciding the present, revision, the other factual details may not be necessary.

(2.) Sri Ramesh Sagar, learned Counsel for revision petitioner/ judgment-debtor had raised the following contentions. Learned Counsel submitted that in E.P.No. 12 of 1997, two reliefs have been prayed for, one is for recovery of rents and another is for delivery of property. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Rule 55 and Rule 218 of A.P. Civil Rules of Practice, and also had drawn my attention to Order 21 Rule 11 of the C.P.C. and contended that the relief of recovery of money cannot be prayed for and in this view of the matter, the very E.P. containing two prayers is not maintainable and hence the order of delivery made in pursuance of such Execution Petition is unsustainable in law.

(3.) Sri P.V. Narayana Rao, learned Counsel representing respondent/ decreeholder had submitted that Rule 55 and Rule 218 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice, 1990, are applicable only to interlocutory proceedings and also execution applications which would be filed in the main E.P. proceedings. Learned Counsel had also drawn my attention to Rule 209 of the A.P. Civil Rules of Practice, 1990 (in short hereinafter called as the Rules for the sake of convenience) and contended that in view of the specific provisions, it cannot be said that Rule 55 and Rule 218 of the Rules are applicable. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Order 21 Rule 11 (2) (J) of C.P.C. and contended that the reliefs prayed for in the E.P. are in accordance with law and that there is no illegality and placed reliance on Viryala Perraju v. Pilli Achanna and judgment of Division Bench in D. Narayanaswamy Naidu v. T.T. Devasthanams, Tirupati and contended that in the light of the ratio in the above decisions, it cannot be said that two prayers cannot be prayed in Execution Petition as such.