BOLLEDDULA VENKATA SURYA NARAYANA Vs. BOLLEDDULA HYMAVATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is preferred by the plaintiff/Decree Holder against the order dtd. 13/7/2017 passed in E.P. No. 441 of 2012 in O.S. No. 285 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, in which, the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC was dismissed.

(2.) The plaintiff/Decree Holder filed a suit against the defendant/Judgment Debtor for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and the said suit was decreed in part for recovery of the suit schedule property from the defendant and directing the defendant to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property to the plaintiff/Decree Holder, within one month from the date of decree. The defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 406 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Guntur and the said appeal was dismissed for default on 29/12/2010. I.A. No. 81 of 2011 was filed to restore the appeal, but the same was pending for hearing as on the date of filing of E.P. There has been no order of stay by the appellate Court against the decree under execution. Since the defendant/Judgment Debtor failed to deliver the possession of the suit schedule property, the plaintiff filed Execution Petition.

(3.) The Execution Petition was resisted by the defendant/Judgment Debtor by filing a counter contending that the Decree Holder has not assigned any valid and cogent reasons in Execution Petition and that the terms and conditions in the decree are contrary to the findings and observations made in the Judgment and as such the decree is not executable, particularly when an appeal was filed, whereas the appeal was dismissed for default during the course of boycott by the advocates and restoration petition is pending. It is further contended that the execution petition schedule property is a single portion house and that the Decree Holder and her family members are planning to do away with the Judgment Debtor.