Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Nandyala Sitaramaraju Another vs Saripella Ramaraju 2 Others on 27 November, 2023
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
C.R.P.No.467 of 2017
ORDER:
The present Revision Petition is filed against the Order dated 01.08.2016 in O.S (SR) No.1335 of 2016 on the file of the Court of the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District.
2. The petitioners' case is that the 1st defendant had filed O.S.No.57 of 1999 against the petitioners and respondent Nos.2 & 3 herein vide O.S.No.57 of 1999 on the file of the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram on the basis of the promissory note for recovery of an amount of Rs.84,866/-. The suit was contested by the petitioners and the suit O.S.No.57 of 1999 was decreed on 29.01.2001 and the same was confirmed in A.S.No.43 of 2001 on the file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge, Amalapuram. Thereafter, E.P.No.110 of 2005 was filed seeking to sell the property of the petitioners. It appears that after the sale was conducted in E.P, the daughters of the plaintiff approached this Court questioning the same, but no details were forthcoming in the plaint. 2
3. Be that as it may. The Plaintiff filed O.S (SR) No.1335 of 2016 before the Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Amalapuram questioning to cancel the decree dated 29.1.2001 in O.S.No.57 of 1999 and to award costs.
4. The Lower Court after considering the plaint rejected the same under Order VII Rule 11(a) of the Civil Procedure Code.
5. Heard the Learned Counsel for the petitioners. Perused the record.
6. Point:- The relief claimed by the petitioners in O.S.No.1335 of 2016 is not maintainable as the petitioners suffered a decree after contesting the suit on merits. The present O.S (SR) No.1335 of 2016 is filed in the year 2016 questioning the decree of the year 2001 is hopelessly barred by time. The scheme of the C.P.C does not enable a party to a suit to contest the decree suffered on merits by way of another suit. The Section 47(1) of C.P.C states that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate 3 suit. The emphasis here is on the term "all questions". It is also to be noted that if suits of this nature are permitted, there would never be an end to the litigation.
7. Though a query to the Counsel i.e., as to why an Appeal was filed, the Learned Counsel referred to a case in Smt.Kavitha Balaji and another vs. The State of Telangana and others1 to contend that the Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is maintainable, notwithstanding the remedy of Appeal. This court does not intend to go into that aspect for the purpose of this case and the disposal may not be seen as a validation to bypass appeal.
8. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, as there are no merits. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 27.11.2023 IS 1 2017 2 ALT 781 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY C.R.P.No.467 of 2017 Date: 27.11.2023 IS