BODDU VENKATA LAKSHMI Vs. V UMASHANKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/J.Dr. under Article 227 of Constitution of India against the order and decree passed in E.A.No.309 of 2015 in E.P.No.121 of 2014 in O.S.No.252 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, dtd. 24/2/2016 wherein and whereby the learned Judge dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 26 CPC.

(2.) The case of the petitioner in brief is that respondent filed execution petition against her for delivery of property on the basis of decree passed on 10/8/2009. She submits that she filed suit against her husband in O.S.No.12 of 2000 seeking maintenance wherein the Family Court conducted enquiry and decreed the suit by granting maintenance wherein also she filed petition for stay and thereafter her husband filed O.P.No.145 of 2005 seeking divorce before Family Court, which was allowed on the ground that she was under aged and granted divorce by dissolving the marriage. She submits that after granting divorce by the Family Court on enquiry with her family members and also villagers about her age, she came to know that she attained majority at the time of her marriage with her husband and then she preferred F.C.A.O.P.No.264 of 2009 before High Court of Andhra Pradesh, wherein Court suspended the order passed in O.P.No.145 of 2005. After that her husband conducted mediation with village elders, wherein elders passed resolution resolving dissolution of her marriage, wherein her husband was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,50,000.00 and allotted one plot bearing No.139 and accordingly her husband executed agreement on 26/9/2006 and as per sale agreement, she has been residing in the E.P. schedule property since long time, but her husband not paid any amount and also sold away the plot No.139 to the respondent/D.Hr., who filed suit against her wherein he obtained a decree. Then, she preferred an appeal in FCAOP No.264 of 2009 before High Court which is pending. In the meanwhile, her husband sold the property and then as per decree obtained by respondent in O.S.No.252 of 2005 he is trying to execute the decree and she prays to stay the execution of decree in O.S.No.252 of 2005 as F.C.A.O.P.No.264 of 2009 is pending.

(3.) Respondent/D.Hr. filed counter before lower Court denying allegations made in the affidavit of petitioner. It is the contention of respondent/D.Hr, the petition filed by the petitioner at belated stage is not maintainable and decree passed on 10/8/2009 and proper remedy for the petitioner is to file appeal against the said decree, which she has not filed. He prays to dismiss the petition.