SHALK RAHAMAN Vs. S RAMAYAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision petition is directed against an order passed in E.P.No. 80 of 1995 in O.S.NO. 13 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram.

(2.) The date of the order impugned is mentioned as 18-6-1996 in the grounds of revision, but however it is pointed out that the impugned order is dated 22-6-1996.

(3.) The main contention of Sri Balaji representing Sri G. Venkateswara Rao, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that the provisions of Order 21 Rule C.P.C. are mandatory and after a lapse two years when the decree holder inter to put the decree into execution not should have been given and without issuing notice since the delivery warrant was issued, all the subsequent proceeding taken are void and non est in law and hence those proceedings are liable to be set aside Though all the facts are not clear from the record Sri Balaji had narrated the facts ultimately leading to the delivery of the property. The revision petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No. 13 of 1980 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Vizianagaram and it was a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for recovery of possession. It was dismissed on 11-3-1985 and aggrieved by the same the plaintiff-respondent filed an appeal A.S. No. 20 of 1985 on the file of the District Judge, Vizianagaram which was allowed on 18-8-1986 and aggrieved by the same S.A.No. 605 of 1986 was filed by the revision petiitoner-defendant in the High Court of A.P. which was dismissed on 1-9-1988. Subsequent thereto on 9-11-1995 E.P.No. 80 of 1995 was filed in O.S.No. 13 of 1980 putting the decree into execution seeking delivery of possession. Since in the E.P. without issuing notice as contemplated by Order 21 Rule 22 C.P.C. delivery was effected such proceedings are ineffective and nullity.