Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Revision Petition, Imposes Costs for Misrepresentation
Court rules against Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC, imposes Rs. 25,000 costs for misuse of court process
In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissed a Civil Revision Petition filed by Pilla Venkateswara Rao alias Allabakshu, challenging a notice issued by the Execution Court for appearance and filing objections in execution proceedings. The court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the counsel for the petitioner for misrepresentation and misuse of the court process.
The case, titled "Pilla Venkateswara Rao Alias Allabakshu v. Kancherla Malyadri", revolved around a decree issued by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in O.S.No.623 of 2002. The decree directed the defendant to vacate and deliver vacant possession of premises to the plaintiff, Kancherla Malyadri. After an appeal filed by Rao was dismissed for non-prosecution, Malyadri initiated execution proceedings, leading to the contested notice.
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed that the notice issued by the Execution Court was not a "case decided" under Section 115 CPC, thus rendering the revision petition non-maintainable. The court clarified that the dismissal of an appeal for default confirms the trial court's decree, and mere pendency of an appeal does not stay execution.
The judgment also highlighted ethical concerns, noting that the petitioner's counsel secured a lunch motion listing by misrepresenting urgency to the court. The court emphasized the role of advocacy as a noble profession, quoting previous judgments on legal ethics and professional conduct.
The ruling imposed a Rs. 25,000 cost on the petitioner's counsel, payable to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee within three weeks, as a deterrent against similar future abuses of court processes.
This judgment reinforces the importance of integrity and ethical conduct in legal practice, while clarifying procedural aspects of execution proceedings and appeal dismissals.
Bottom Line:
Civil Revision Petition against notice under Section 115 of CPC for appearance and filing objections in execution case is not maintainable as it is not a "case decided" by a subordinate court. Misrepresentation for urgency in lunch motion is an abuse of process, warranting costs.
Statutory provision(s): Section 115 of CPC, Order XLI Rule 17 of CPC
