THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.36739 of 2014
Dated:02.12.2014
Between:
P.Radha Krishna Reddy, S/o Govind Reddy ….Petitioner And:
The State of Telangana, reptd by its Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department, Hyderabad and three others.
… Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri S.Venkateswara Reddy Counsel for the Respondents: AGP for Irrigation (TS) The Court made the following:
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents, in not depositing the decretal amount in pursuance of common judgment, dated 23.01.2007 in AS.No.1104 of 2004 and Transfer Appeal No.3638 of 2004, as illegal and arbitrary.
The petitioner has filed a suit-O.S.No.46 of 1992 against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for recovery of certain amounts in connection with a contract work. The suit was initially dismissed. However, A.S.No.1104 of 2004 filed by the petitioner against the said order was allowed and the suit was decreed. The petitioner has filed E.P. (SR).No.6232 of 2007. The said EP was dismissed on 04.12.2007 on the ground that the amount for which E.P. was filed was incorrectly mentioned and that the same is contrary to the judgment of this Court in the above-mentioned appeals. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed E.P.No.120 of 2008. The petitioner pleaded that the said E.P. is pending in the Court of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal.
In my opinion, having filed the E.P., the petitioner has to pursue the same to its logical end.
Ordinarily, a decree-holder is entitled to execute the decree by filing the Execution Petition. The only exception carved out by this Court in entertaining the Writ Petitions was the cases of owners of agricultural lands acquired by the State and payments not deposited even after the awards are allowed to attain finality. The petitioner, who is a Contractor, cannot equate himself with an agriculturist.
For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any reason to entertain this Writ Petition.
The Writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the E.P.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.45982 of 2014 is dismissed as infructuous.
JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY 02nd December 2014 DR