The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.5661 of 2009
Dated 15.09.2014
Between:
Nallabolu Narsimha Reddy …Petitioner And Chandari Kondal Reddy and 3 others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mohd.Ghulam Hussain Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: Mr.Venkata Rangadas Kanuri The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 04.11.2009, in EA.No.8 of 2008 in EA.No.7 of 2008 in EP.No.8 of 2006 in OS.No.63 of 1985, on the file of the Court of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam.
The petitioner is the decree holder. For execution of the decree, he has filed the aforesaid Execution Petition (EP). Pending the said EP, respondent Nos.1 and 2, who were third parties to the suit, filed EA.No.7 of 2008 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), by making a claim. The petitioner has filed EA.No.8 of 2008 raising objection on the maintainability of EA.No.7 of 2008. By the order under revision, the lower Court has disposed of EA.No.7 of 2008 by holding that such an application is maintainable.
Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed this Civil Revision Petition.
A perusal of the record shows that this Civil Revision Petition was filed as far back as 25-12- 2009 and is kept pending since then. In my opinion, at this length of time, the question whether respondent Nos.1 and 2 are entitled to file claim petition or not need not be decided in the Civil Revision Petition. Instead, interests of justice would be met, if the lower Court is directed to dispose of the EP itself on merits within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order without reference to the findings rendered in the impugned order.
Subject to the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.7752 of 2009, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 15th September, 2014 LUR