THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY
CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4589 OF 2012 Dated:05-09-2014 Between:
Ahmed Mohiuddin
... PETITIONER
AND
Dr. V. Sampath and two others
.. RESPONDENTS
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4589 OF 2012 ORDER:
The petitioner filed O.S No. 343 of 2003 in the Court of II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, with a prayer to grant mandatory injunction against the respondents herein in the context of repairs to a flat. It was stated that the flat was purchased by him from the respondents and within a short time, it has developed quite a large number of repairs on several aspects. He claimed damages of Rs.25,000/-. The suit was decreed on 20- 12-2004. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.P No. 63 of 2009 for execution of the decree. He stated that neither the amount of Rs.25,000/- as directed in the decree was paid nor the cost of repairs which according to him is Rs.26,500/- was paid.
After receiving notice in the E.P., the 3rd respondent herein deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- as well as the costs of Rs.6,528/-
. The executing Court closed the E.P., through order dated 29-11- 2011. It rejected the plea of the petitioner as regards the balance of the amount on the ground that no evidence was placed before it to prove that any repairs have been undertaken by him.
The petitioner filed E.A No. 175 of 2012, with a prayer to review the order in the E.P. The E.A was dismissed on 08-08-2012. Hence, the revision.
The exparte decree passed in favour of the petitioner is to the effect that the respondents shall effect repairs to the premises and if they fail to do so, it shall be open to the petitioner to carry out the repairs and claim the concerned amount. Further direction was issued for deposit of Rs.25,000/-.
In case, the first limb of the decree was not complied with by the respondents, the petitioner was under an obligation to bring the same to the notice of the Court and then effect repairs duly keeping the trial Court informed about the nature of repairs. No such step was taken.
Even otherwise, in case the petitioner has caused repairs, he was required to depose as a witness and prove the factum of effecting repairs duly filing the bills and other related documents. The petitioner did not enter the witness box and thereby, his plea as to effecting repairs was not proved. There is no controversy about the second limb of the decree, viz., deposit of Rs.25,000/-. Therefore, the executing Court has dismissed the E.P.
The petitioner could have sought review of the order passed in the E.P., if only facts borne out by the record missed the attention of the Court. It was not even pointed out that the executing Court did not take into account the relevant facts. It was pleaded that the petitioner did not adduce oral or documentary evidence in support of his contention. As long as that finding remains unchallenged, there was no occasion for the petitioner to file any review.
Hence, the C.R.P is dismissed.
The miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision shall also stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J
05-09-2014
ks