MUVVA RAMESH BABU Vs. KANDIMALLA BINDU MADHAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree holder before the executing Court has come up with this civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the inaction of the executing Court in not taking up E.A.No.181 of 2011 in E.P.No.17 of 2011 in O.S.No.44 of 2010. Despite notices, respondents did not make appearance to contest it. The 1st respondent is claim petitioner and the 2nd respondent is J.Dr.No.2.

(2.) Sri Muvva Ramesh Babu filed O.S.No.44 of 2010 as against Sri K.Rama Krishna Raju. Learned Junior Civil Judge, Parchur decided that suit and passed a decree on 31/1/2011. The said decree shows that the defendant was directed to redeliver plaint schedule property to plaintiff within two months from the date of decree failing which plaintiff was granted liberty to get the things done through process of law. The plaintiff was also awarded suit costs. Since the defendant did not comply with the decree directions, the decree holder filed E.P.No.17 of 2011 under Order XXI Rule 35 C.P.C. It is at that time a third party to this litigation by name Smt. K.Bindu Madhavi raised a claim and filed E.A.No.181 of 2011 under Order XXI Rule 99 and Sec. 151 C.P.C. wherein she impleaded D.Hr. as well as J.Dr. and the relief claimed is to declare her as the exclusive owner of E.P. schedule property and for a direction for redelivery of the property. Thus, the execution petition as well as execution application/claim petition have been pending before the learned executing Court since the year 2011.

(3.) In the present revision, it is stated and the learned counsel for revision petitioner argued that this revision petitioner filed his counter in the claim petition on 27/10/2011 and J.Dr. also filed his counter on that day and the trial of the claim petition was to be taken up from 14/11/2011, but since then till now, learned Junior Civil Judge has not been proceeding with this matter. This is against the constitutional rights for speedy disposal of case and against the administrative directions issued by this Court. Therefore, the only prayer he makes in this revision is to seek a direction to the Court below to dispose of E.A.No.181 of 2011 within a time frame.