HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.768 OF 2010 Dated 11-11-2014 Between:
J.Venkata Narayana Reddy.
..Petitioner.
And:
The Special Deputy Collector, Srisailam Project, Kurnool.
..Respondent.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.768 OF 2010 ORDER:
This revision is preferred against order dated 11- 7-2008 in E.P.No.335 of 2005 in O.P.No.377 of 1989 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool.
Revision petitioner herein is Decree Holder in the above referred E.P., and E.P. is filed for executing decree in Land Acquisition O.P.No.377 of 1989.
As seen from the order of Executing Court, the said E.P. filed by the Decree Holder was dismissed on two grounds. First ground is that the said E.P. is filed beyond the period of limitation and the second ground is that the Court which passed decree recorded Full Satisfaction and therefore, Decree Holder is not entitled for execution.
Heard arguments.
One of the ground on which Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool dismissed E.P. is that original court i.e., Senior Civil Judge Court, Atmakur has recorded Full Satisfaction of the award and therefore, the Decree Holder is not entitled to execute further.
Advocate for revision petitioner submitted that Government deposited Rs.2,98,393/- as per the orders of this court in writ petition No.9184 of 1997 and the decree Holder filed cheque petition before Senior Civil Judge Court, Atmakur in I.A.No.513 of 2000 and D.Hr. filed Part Satisfaction Memo but the court wrongly recorded Full Satisfaction and therefore, there is no fault on the part of Decree Holder.
As seen from the impugned order, Government filed counter contending that a Full Satisfaction Memo is filed along with cheque petition and court also recorded Full satisfaction and therefore, Decree Holder is not entitled to execute the award in O.P.No.377 of 1989.
The trial court conducted enquiry in E.P.during which, Decree Holder is examined as P.W.1 and Special Deputy Collector is examined as R.W.1 and on behalf of J.Dr. a certified copy of O.P. registration extract is marked as Ex.B.1. Considering the evidence of R.W.1, particularly Ex.B.1 document, trial court observed that as Full Satisfaction is recorded in respect of award in O.P.No.377 of 1989, E.P. is not maintainable and accordingly dismissed.
Advocate for revision petitioner mainly contended that Part Satisfaction Memo filed by Decree Holder was altered as Full Satisfaction Memo and for the fraud committed by somebody, Decree Holder cannot be penalized. But the submission of the counsel for revision petitioner cannot be accepted because, there is no material to show that any fraud is being committed against Decree Holder.
From the material, the fact remains that original court i.e., Senior Civil judge Court, Atmakur while issuing cheque for Rs.2,98,393/- in I.A.No.583 of 2000 recorded Full Satisfaction of Decree on 23-11-2000. When this fact was within the knowledge of Decree Holder, during enquiry in E.P. proceedings, he has not taken any steps at least to verify the records of Senior Civil Judge Court, Atmakur to know the alleged correction of Part Satisfaction Memo into Full Satisfaction Memo. On the other hand, Decree Holder proceeded with the enquiry in E.P. though the Judgment Debtor has produced certified copy of extract of O.P. register and marked as Ex.B.1. The Decree Holder did not take any steps to get the entries in the O.P. Register corrected even after knowing that Full Satisfaction was recorded on 23-11-2000.
As seen from the record, the Special Deputy Collector is examined as R.W.1 on 16-4-2008 through whom, this Ex.B.1 is marked. He deposed in his evidence that government deposited entire amount as per the High Court direction on 24-3-1998 and Ex.B.1 is the certified copy of the said registration extract relating to execution of year 1998. So, when the original court recorded Full Satisfaction on 23-11-2000 and when the certified copy of registration extract is marked during E.P. proceedings, the D.Hr. has not evinced any interest in verifying the correctness of the entry recorded in register of Senior Civil Judge court, Atmakur. So, the trial court has rightly considered the court record as per which the Full Satisfaction is recorded in respect of award in O.P.No.337 of 1989 and rightly dismissed E.P.
The other ground is that E.P. is filed beyond period of limitation. When Full Satisfaction is recorded, it makes no difference even if the E.P. is filed in time.
I do not find any incorrect findings in the order of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool in disallowing the E.P. of the Decree Holder.
For these reasons, this Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
As a sequel to the disposal of this revision, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand dismissed.
JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dated 11-11-2014.
Dvs.
HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE S.RAVI KUMAR Dvs CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.768 OF 2010 Dated 11-11-2014