RADHA KRISHNA IRON STORES Vs. SRIKAKOLAPU PULLAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is one among about a dozen of proceedings, that ensued between the parties, in the matter of eviction from certain premises. Petitioners are the tenants, and the respondent is the landlady. The respondent filed O.S. No.61 of 1994 in the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for eviction, and for damages. The suit was decreed as prayed for. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners filed A.S. No.44 of 1996 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The decree for eviction was set aside, and the one, for damages, was upheld with certain modifications.

(2.) In the matter of enforcing the modified decree, several proceedings, be it, in the form of seeking clarification or executing the decree, at various stages, ensured. Ultimately, it emerged that the decree passed by the lower appellate Court was clarified through order dated 3-10-2005 in I.A. No.989 of 2005. Based on the same, the respondent filed E.P. No.205 of 2006, for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,01,771/-. She sought for attachment of the movables, in the form of stock in trade of the petitioners. The Executing Court directed attachment, as a result of which, the petitioners were compelled to deposit the amount of Rs.4,01,771/-. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the E.P. was filed beyond two years from the date of the decree, passed by the lower appellate Court, the Executing Court did not issue notice to them, as contemplated under Rule 22 of Order 21 C.P.C.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial Court has taken an incorrect view of the matter, by treating the date of clarification as the date of decree, and dispensing with the notice, provided for under the relevant provisions.