SYED AMEERUDDIN QUADRI Vs. LAXMI CHITS BANDARIGUDEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Srinivasa Rao, Counsel representing Sri K.Venkata Rao, Counsel for the Revision Petitioners, Sri A.Satyaraj babu, Counsel representing respondents 1 and 2 and the learned Advocate General.

(2.) The Revision Petitioners are defendants in O.S.No.59 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The said defendants suffered a decree on 7-4-2001 and respondents 1 and 2 who are the plaintiffs in the said suit had put the said decree into execution by filing E.P.No.94 of 2001 in O.S.No.59 of 2000 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem. The petitioners/defendants, who are the Judgment-Debtors in the said E.P., are raising an objection to the very execution of the said decree by the said Court on the ground that Rule 35 of the Andhra Pradesh Agency Rules 1924 framed under Sec.6 of the Scheduled Districts Act, 1874 (in short Rules) would operate as a bar and unless the said procedure is followed, though the decree was passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem, even the self same Court cannot execute the decree. The learned Advocate General at the out set submitted that on facts, it is clear that Rule 35 of the Rules is not applicable at all and hence, the question raised in the present Civil Revision Petition does not involve any question of general importance as such and hence, the said Civil Revision Petition can be disposed of in the light of the factual situation.

(3.) Rule 35 of the afore said Rules reads as here under: