High Court directs expeditious disposal of execution proceedings, reiterates transferee's right to subrogate decree holders and denies condonation of delay in setting aside ex parte orders
In a significant judgment dated July 31, 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court, presided over by Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy, dismissed multiple Civil Revision Petitions challenging orders passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Tadepalligudem, in execution proceedings relating to a property dispute originating from a suit filed in 1988.
The dispute arose from O.S.No.39 of 1988, where the original plaintiff sought specific performance of an agreement of sale dated December 10, 1984. After the plaintiff's death, legal representatives continued the suit which was decreed in 1997. The appellate court confirmed the decree in 2000. Execution Petition (E.P.) No.65 of 2002 was filed to enforce the decree. The judgment debtors, including the petitioners in these revisions, are legal representatives of the original defendants.
During the prolonged execution proceedings, various transfers of decree rights took place through registered deeds. Respondents 10 and 11 were permitted by the Executing Court to subrogate the original decree holders' rights based on a 2016 deed of transfer, and subsequently, respondents 12 and 13 were similarly allowed to be impleaded as decree holders pursuant to a 2023 transfer deed. The petitioners, judgment debtors 4, 8, and 9, challenged these orders and sought condonation of delay in filing applications to set aside adverse ex parte orders. However, the Executing Court dismissed these applications citing sufficient notice and lack of sufficient cause for delay.
The petitioners contended non-receipt of notice and residence outside the jurisdiction, but the Court found that they had previously provided addresses within the jurisdiction and had evaded service. Notices were served by substituted means, including publication in a local newspaper, yet the petitioners failed to appear, leading to ex parte orders. The Court held that the delays appeared to be tactics to prolong execution proceedings, which have been pending for over two decades.
On the issue of transferees' rights, the Court affirmed that under Order XXI Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Code, a registered transferee of a decree is entitled to execute the decree and stand in the shoes of the original decree holder without requiring separate permission. The Court upheld the Executing Court's orders permitting the respondents to come on record as decree holders following valid transfer deeds.
Importantly, the Court noted the Supreme Court's recent directions in Periyammal (Dead) through LRs v. V. Rajamani (2025) and Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi (2021), requiring expeditious disposal of execution petitions within six months. Given the protracted delay of over 24 years in the present execution proceedings, the High Court directed the Executing Court to comply with the apex court's mandate and conclude the execution expeditiously.
The Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 353, 297, 355, 354, and 540 of 2026 were thus dismissed, affirming the orders of the Executing Court and bringing the long-pending dispute closer to resolution.
Bottom Line:
Under section 115 CPC, the High Court can exercise its revisional jurisdiction when the subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law, failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.
Statutory provision(s):
Section 115 CPC, Order XXI Rule 16 CPC, Section 146 CPC, Section 5 Limitation Act, 1963, Order I Rule 10 CPC, Order XXII Rule 10A CPC
