Common Order
K. Lakshman, J.
1. Since the parties and the lis involved in these revisions are one and the same, these revisions are heard together and being disposed of by the common order.
2. Heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the revisions and Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for respondents in CRP No.783 of 2026 and respondent No.1 in CRP Nos.785 and 894 of 2026.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners filed a memo vide USR No.35471 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026 in CRP No.783 of 2026 stating that 3rd respondent is also a Judgment Debtor, she stands on the same footing as that of the petitioners, since she is residing in Australia, and they could get her vakalath in time. Therefore, she is only a formal party. Therefore, petitioners are not seeking any relief against her.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also filed a memo vide USR No.35470 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026 in CRP No.785 of 2026 stating that 2nd respondent is also a Judgment Debtor, she stands on the same footing that of the petitioners, since she is residing in Australia, and they could get her vakalath in time. She is only a formal party. Therefore, petitioners are not seeking any relief against her.
5. Even in CRP No.894 of 2026 also, it is mentioned in the cause title itself that 2nd respondent is a formal party.
6. These Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’). CRP No.783 of 2026 is filed assailing the order dated 27.02.2026 passed in E.A.No.24 of 2026 in E.P.No.47 of 2026 by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. Likewise, CRP No.783 of 2026 is filed aggrieved by the order of the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in numbering and entertaining E.P.No.47 of 2026 filed by 1st respondent under Order XXI Rule 11 of CPC. Likewise, CRP No.894 of 2026 is filed challenging the order dated 09.02.2026 passed in E.P.No.47 of 2026.
7. Facts which are not in dispute are as follows:-
i. Husband and father of the petitioners respectively i.e. Sri N.Peethambar Naidu have executed two registered development agreements –cum – General Power of Attorney bearing document Nos.1865 and 1866 of 2004 both dated 30.06.2024 in favour of the 1st respondent for development of old building with the land admeasuring 550 sq.yards bearing Municipal H.Nos. 4-1-410, 4-1-411, 4-1-414 situated at Abid Road, Hyderabad i.e. Schedule – A property, and old building with land admeasuring 171.87 sq.yards bearing Municipal H.Nos.4-1-415, B.2, situated at Abid Road, Hyderabad i.e. Schedule–B property (for short, ‘the subject property’).
ii. There were disputes between the parties with regard to development of the said property. Therefore, 1st respondent had invoked arbitration clause in the said development agreement – cum - GPA vide Arb.Appl. No.22 of 2011 before the sole Arbitrator.
iii. Learned Arbitrator has passed an Award on 03.05.2012.
iv. Challenging the said Award, the petitioners filed a petition vide O.P.No.1663 of 2012 under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, ‘the Act, 1996”) and the same was dismissed on 11.06.2024.
v. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioners preferred an appeal vide CMA No.611 of 2024 before this Court and it is pending. No interim order is granted in the said appeal.
vi. On 07.01.2026, 1st respondent herein has filed an Execution Petition vide E.P.No.47 of 2026 seeking execution of the Award, dated 03.5.2012 passed in Arb.Appl.No.22 of 2011 passed by the sole Arbitrator.
vii. Along with the said EP, 1st respondent has also filed two Execution Applications. Learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, issued warrant under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC and directed the Bailiff to deliver possession of schedule –A and B properties. The Bailiff filed report on 24.02.2026 stating that the premises is locked.
viii. 1st respondent had filed E.A.No.24 of 2026 seeking a direction to break open the lock and deliver possession of the E.P.Schedule –A and B properties. On 27.02.2026, learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad allowed the said EA and posted the matter to 18.03.2026 directing the Bailiff to break open the lock, if necessary to remove obstruction, if any, in accordance with law and deliver vacant and actual physical possession of the schedule-A and B properties to the 1st respondent/D.Hr. if remind by take up by police aid, for execution of the warrant, the Bailiff is directed to prepare a detailed panchanamas at the time of execution and submit a compliance report by 18.03.2026.
ix. Challenging the said order dated 27.02.2026 in E.P.No.24 of 2026, the petitioners/J.Drs. filed C.R.P.No.783 of 2026.
x. The petitioners have also filed a revision vide CRP No.785 of 2026 to declare the order of learned IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in numbering and entertaining the E.P.No.47 of 2026.
xi. The petitioners have also filed a revision vide CRP No.894 of 2026 challenging the order darted 09.02.2026 in the said E.P.
xii. Vide order dated 09.02.2026, learned Executing Court passed the order as “Register. Issue Warrant U/O-XXI R.35 to J.Dr. No.1 to 4 through Court and RPAD. Call on 24.02.2026.”
8. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONERS:-
i. 1st respondent/J.Dr. has filed the aforesaid E.P.No.47 of 2026 straightaway before the learned IV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Hyderabad, which is contrary to the procedure laid down under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, CPC and Telangana Civil Courts Act, 1972. Referred Section 21 of the Act, 1996, Section 3 of CPC and also Section 6 the Telangana Civil Courts Act in support of his contentions. The E.P. is barred by limitation.
ii. Award is dated 03.05.2012 and therefore, Amendment 2015 to the Act, 1996 is not applicable to the present arbitration proceedings.
iii. 1st respondent has not filed certified copies of Award dated 03.05.2012 in Arb.Appl.No.22 of 2011 which is mandatory in terms of Rule 240 of Civil Rules of Practice.
iv. Though the 1st respondent has filed an application to dispense with filing of certified copy of the said Award, without passing any order, Executing Court passed orders dated 09.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 illegally.
v. The aforesaid E.P.No.47 of 2026 was filed beyond two years of the Award dated 03.05.2012 in Arb.Appl. No.23 of 2011 and even then learned Executing Court passed orders without issuing notice to the petitioners.
vi. Learned Executing Court passed orders dated 09.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 without assigning any reasons.
vii. 1st respondent has filed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking a direction to Bailiff to break open the lock of the schedule property and deliver vacant and actual possession of the schedule properties to the D.Hr., by putting the D.Hr. in possession thereof. He did not seek any relief of police aid. Even then, vide impugned order, learned Executing Court directed the Bailiff to take possession by executing the warrant by seeking police aid.
viii. Executing Court cannot go beyond the scope of the Award.
Executing Court cannot interpret the Award.
ix. The Execution Petition is barred by limitation.
x. Reliance was placed on Article 136 and Section 15 of the Limitation Act.
xi. Before amendment 2015, to the Act, 1996, filing of an application under Section 34 itself is sufficient and there is no need of filing stay petition. The stay is automatic. After amendment 2015, to the Act, 1996, the J.Dr. has to necessarily obtain stay in terms of Section 36 of the Act, 1996. In the present case, the Award is dated 03.05.2012 i.e. prior to amendment 2015. Without considering the said aspects, learned Executing Court passed orders dated 07.02.2026 and 27.02.2026.
xii. Pursuant to the order dated 27.02.2026, Bailiff delivered possession of both the schedule properties to 1st respondent/D.Hr. who in turn demolished portion of schedule-A property on 02.03.2026 at 3.00 A.M. Therefore, the entire procedure adopted by Executing Court, is arbitral and illegal.
xiii. After amendment to Section 36 of the Act, 1996 in the year 2015, filing of an application under Section 34 of the Act, does not operate as an automatic stay on enforcement of the arbitral award. In the absence of any order of stay, the respondent was always at liberty to initiate execution proceedings. Despite the same, respondent failed to initiate execution for several years and has come up with the present Execution Petition only in the year 2026.
xiv. The Executing Court out not to have entertained the EP which is not filed before the Court within the meaning of Section 2(1)(e) of the Act. The said EP is not maintainable before the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for execution of the Award directly.
xv. The Executing Court failed to follow the mandatory procedure in numbering the EP that too, in the absence of filing of certified copy of the award.
xvi. The Executing Court without passing order in EASR No.113 of 2026 filed by the respondent/D.Hr. to dispense with the filing of certified copy of the original award, proceeded with the EP.
xvii. The Executing Court erred in passing the order dated 09.02.2026 in the EP filed beyond two years for handing over physical possession in respect of the schedule-A and B properties without notice to the J.Dr. is illegal and liable to be set aside.
xviii. The Executing Court erred in passing order dated 09.02.2026 in EP for non-existing relief by travelling beyond the relief granted in the Award.
9. With the said submissions, the petitioners sought to set aside the order dated 27.02.2026 and dismiss E.P.No.47 of 2026 as barred by law.
10. Whereas, respondent/D.Hr. filed counter opposing the present execution petition contending as follows:-
i. It is the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, who dismissed AOP No.1663 of 2012 filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 and therefore, 1st respondent has filed execution petition straightaway before the said Court. There is no irregularity.
ii. The petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 filed by the petitioners was dismissed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 11.06.2024. Though they preferred an appeal vide CMA No.611 of 2024, there is no stay in the said appeal and it is pending before this Court. Therefore, the 1st respondent has filed the present Execution Petition on 07.01.2026 i.e. within two years. Therefore, learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, registered the said EP and issued warrant. Therefore, the said E.P. is within limitation.
iii. Despite making efforts, 1st respondent could not get certified copy of the said Award.
iv. Learned sole Arbitrator who passed Award is no more.
v. The Copy Application filed by 1st respondent before the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge was returned. Therefore, 1st respondent has filed an application in the said E.P. to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the said Award. The same was allowed. Therefore, there is no error.
vi. In E.A.No.24 of 2026 in E.P.No.47 of 2026, 1st respondent sought other orders which the Executing Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice. On consideration of the same only, learned Executing Court directed the Bailiff to take police aid in execution of the warrant. Therefore, there is no irregularity.
vii. There is no challenge to the order dated 09.02.2026. Learned XIV Additional Chief Judge passed the said order considering the Award dated 03.12.2012 and the impugned order is within the scope of the said Award. On consideration of the said aspects only, learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad passed the order dated 09.02.2026 and there is no irregularity.
11. With the said submissions, 1st respondent/D.Hr. sought to dismiss the present CRPs.
12. We have heard Sri T. Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the revisions and Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent at length. Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners filed synopsis/note along with judgments vide USR No.41877, dated 02.04.2026 in CRP Nos.783 of 2026 and 785 of 2026. Whereas, Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent filed written arguments vide USR No.35615, dated 18.03.2026 in CRP Nos.783 and 785 of 2026 and submissions vide USR No.42193, dated 02.04.2026.
13. Sri T.Bala Mohan Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Potlabathuni Srikanth vs. Shriram City Union Finance Limited (2016 (2) ALD page 10), Board of Control for Cricket in India vs. Kochi Cricket Private Limited ((2018) 6 SCC 287), Fountain Head Developers and others vs. Mrs. Maria Arcangela sequeira and others (2007 SCC OnLine Bom 340), Cheran properties Limited vs. Kasturi and Sons Limited and other ((2018) 16 SCC 413), Sundaram Finance Limited vs. Abdul Samad and another ((2018) 3 SCC 622), and M/s Nkg Infrastructure Limited vs. State and others (Manu/uc/0871/2012)
14. Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Birma Devi vs. Subhash (2024 SCC Online SC 3676), State of West Bengal vs. Associated Contractors ((2015) 1 SCC page 32) and the judgment of learned Single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Dr. Subhash Chandra Jain vs. Shri Digambar Jain Mahila Trust (S.A.No.1824 of 2025) and the principle laid down by the Apex Court in India Media Services Pvt.Ltd. vs. SBPL Infrastructures ((2022) SCC Online TS 3422), and the Division Bench of the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Prabhakar Rao H Mawle vs. Hyderabad State Bank (AIR 1964 AP 101).
15. Considering the aforesaid contentions of the petitioners, more particularly, procedural irregularities said to have been committed by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, vide order dated 17.03.2026, we have directed the registry to call for the original record in E.P.No47 of 2026 from the learned Executing Court. In compliance with the said order, Registry has called for the original record. We have perused the same.
16. As discussed supra, there is no dispute with regard to the Award passed by learned sole Arbitrator on 03.05.2012 and dismissal of an application vide AOP No.1663 of 2012 filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 by learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, on 11.06.2024. It is also not in dispute that the petitioners have preferred an appeal vide CMA No.611 of 2024 under Section 35 of the Act and it is pending. There is no stay in the said appeal.
17. Perusal of the original record in E.P.No.47 of 2026 would reveal that the 1st respondent i.e. M/s AB Holding Company, a partnership firm, represented by its Managing Partner and Chief Executive Mr. Atul P Desai, has filed the said EP under Rule 141 (2) of Civil Rules of Practice read with Order 21 Rule 11 of CPC, against the petitioners and 2nd/3rd respondent in respective Revisions i.e. N.P.Shashikala seeking the following reliefs:-
“a) Issue warrant under Order XXI, Rule 35 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, directing the bailiff to receive the vacant physical possession of the "A" and "B" schedule properties from the J.Drs. and hand over the vacant physical possession to the D.Hr.
b) To execute a General Power of Attorney on behalf of the J.Drs. in favour of D.Hr. in respect of both the Development Agreements - cum General power of Attorney bearing Document Nos. 1865 and 1866 of 2004 both dated 30.06.2004, and pass such and other orders as this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”
18. As discussed supra, respondent No.1/D.Hr. has filed the said EP on 07.01.2026 vide E.P.(SR) No.109 of 2026 and learned Executing Court returned the said EP on 20.01.2026 with the following objection:-
1. Original GPA to be filed
2. C.C. of Arbitration Award to be filed.
3. Claiming schedule-A and B property not mentioned in Arbitrator Award.
4. Against whom to be executed not mentioned in E.P. Hence, returned.
Time (7) days.”
19. The said seven days time granted to the 1st respondent / D.Hr. was expired on 27.01.2026. Even then, 1st respondent has re-submitted the bundle on 28.01.2026 vide SR No.580 of 2026 without compliance of the aforesaid objections taken by the Executing Court on 20.01.2026. The said bundle was again returned on 31.01.2026 with the following objection:-
“Previous objections not complied. Hence, returned. Time (7) days.”
20. 1st respondent has re-submitted the bundle on 02.02.2026 vide Re.SR No.724 of 2026 with the following explanation:-
1) Original Board of Resolution is filed.
2) Original Award not called for by Court.
3) Statement of claim is filed.
4) Corrections made and endorsed Counsel sign.
All objections are complied herewith. Hence, re-submitted. “Call for Bench”
21. On 04.02.2026, Office of the learned Executing Court put up the following Note:-
“This E.P. is filed by the decree-holder prays to direct the bailiff of the court to delivery of possession of the Execution petition schedule property against JDR No.1 to 4 U/O.XXI Rules 35 R/W 151 of CPC and handover the same to the decree holder by putting the decree holder into vacant and physical possession of the EP schedule property be delivered to the DHR.
1. JDRs preferred ARB O.P.No.1663/2012 on the file of the XIV ACJ, CCC, Hyderabad. Dismissed vide order Dated 11/06/2024.
2. C.M.A.No.611/2024 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature for the state of Telangana, Hyderabad.
3. Petition filed u/s 151 of cpc, seeking to dispense with filing of CC of ARB Award in A.A.No.22 of 2011 dated 03.05.2012.
4. No interim orders are granted, appeal is pending adjudication.
5. No appeal is preferred by the aggrieved party.
6. No appeal is preferred by the aggrieved party.
7. No stay as per the Affidavit filed by D.Hr.
8. This E.P. is filed within two years.
CMO
Sd/
04/02/2026
22. Learned Executing Court passed the following Order:-
“Register. Issue warrant under Order –XXI R.35 CPC to JDR No.1 to 4 through court and RPAD. Call on 24.02.2026.”
“I/warrant 13/2”
23. Perusal of the original record in the said E.P. would also reveal that the learned Executing Court did not mention the date of the aforesaid order. The Chief Ministerial Officer of the Executing Court put up note on 04.02.2026, but learned Executing Court did not mention the date of the aforesaid order.
24. Learned Executing Court did not mention any reasons as to whether the aforesaid objections raised were complied with by the 1st respondent or not and as to whether the explanation offered by the 1st respondent/D.Hr. on 02.02.2026 is satisfied by the Executing Court or not. Therefore, the aforesaid order dated 09.02.2026 is without assigning reasons and therefore, it is erroneous. On the said ground itself it is liable to be set aside.
25. Even in the warrant to the Bailiff to give possession of land etc., in Form No.11 issued under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC, the date is mentioned as 13.02.2026 and the date of the aforesaid order is not mentioned.
26. Perusal of the original record in the said E.P. would also reveal that there is endorsement with black ink i.e. i/warrant,13/2”.
27. On 24.02.2026, learned Executing Court passed the following order:-
“Warrant retd. as unexecuted. EA--/2026 u/s-151 CPC is filed and is pending. Call on 27.02.2026.
Sd/-
28. On 27.02.2026, learned Executing Court passed the following order:-
“E.A.No.24/26 is allowed. For bailiff report – 18/3. Sd/-
I/warrant 28/2.
18/03/2026. CA 4605/26
| 1) E.P.pet.& vakalat-17,2) EA24/26 Pet.u/s.151-4, 3) Pet.EASR 113/26-5, 4) No stay affidavit-2 5) Warrant Report-1 | Kept in bundleSd/- |
“Mr. M/s Syed Ahmed Ali, filed petition u/o-XXI R-26 r/w Sec-151 of CPC, along with list of documents. JDR.1 to 4 filed memo stating that status quo is passed by Hon’ble High Court in CRP. Call on 16.04.2026.”
30. Perusal of the record would also reveal that respondent Nos.1 and 2 in CRP No.783 of 2026 filed E.A.No.12 of 2026 on 07.01.2026 vide EASR No.112 of 2026 under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice, seeking permission to the deponent of the said application i.e. Atul P Desai, to represent and proceed in all proceedings before the Court on behalf of the petitioner No.2 i.e. M/s AB Holding Company.
31. It was also returned and resubmitted on 28.01.2026 vide SRNo.582 of 2026. It was again re-submitted on 02.02.2026 vide SR No.726 of 2026.
32. Perusal of the docket of the said application in E.A.No.12 of 2026 would reveal that learned Executing Court passed the order holding “Heard. Petition is allowed.” But there is no date mentioned in the said order. Even in the docket of E.P., there is no date on which the learned Executing Court allowed the said application.
33. In fact, Sri Atul P Desai is claiming that he is the Managing Partner and Chief Executive of M/s AB Holding Company. Even before the learned Arbitrator and in the petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, he only represented the said firm. Even then, he has filed the aforesaid application under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice seeking permission to represent M/s AB Holidng company. Without giving any reasons, learned Executing Court allowed the said application observing “Heard. Petition is allowed.”
34. Perusal of record would also reveal that the learned counsel for the petitioners/J.Drs. has filed a memo vide SR No.2126 of 2026 dated 18.03.2026 in the present revisions by duly serving a copy on the learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent/D.Hr. stating that he has filed copy applications vide C.A.Nos.4767 of 2026, 4868 of 2026 and 5296 of 2026 seeking certified copies of the docket order dated 07.02.1996, 08.02.2026, till date, said Copy Applications have not been complied with by the concerned section. It is also further stated that this Court called for original records in E.P.No.47 of 2026.
35. Perusal of the record would also reveal that 1st respondent has filed another application in the said E.P. on 07.01.2026 vide SR No.113 of 2026 u/sec. 151 of CPC to dispense with filing of certified copy of Arbitral Award in A.A.No.23 of 2011 dated 03.05.2012. The same was re-submitted vide SR No.584 of 2026 dated 28.01.2026 and again re-submitted on 02.02.2026 vide SR No.728 of 2026. There is no mention of the objection on which it was returned and the explanation offered by the 1st respondent/D.Hr. while resubmitting the said E.A. However, learned Executing Court passed the order holding “Heard. Petition is allowed.” There is no date mentioned in the said order.
36. It is apt to note that learned Executing Court did not give any number to the said EA.
37. In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, there is mention about filing of application seeking certified copy of the Award and return of the same with an endorsement that “the award available in the file is true copy and true copy cannot be applied in CA.” There is also mention with regard to demise of learned sole arbitrator. Even then, without giving any reasons, learned Executing Court passed the aforesaid order, i.e. “Heard. Petition is allowed.”
38. As discussed supra, learned Executing Court returned the aforesaid E.P. with a direction to re-submit the bundle within seven days. The seven days period was expired on 27.01.2026. However, learned counsel for the 1st respondent/D.Hr. re-submitted bundle on 28.02.2026 vide SR No.580 of 2026 without complying with the aforesaid objections raised by the Executing Court and without filing an application seeking extension of time granted to re-submit the bundle. .
39. Even then, learned Executing Court entertained the said E.P. which was re-submitted beyond the seven days time granted to 1st respondent. Even on 28.01.2026, 1st respondent did not comply with the aforesaid objections raised by the Executing Court. Therefore, the said E.P. was returned on 31.01.2026 holding that the previous objections are not complied with. Hence, returned.
40. Ultimately, the 1st respondent has re-submitted the bundle on 02.02.2026 with the foresaid explanation. Even then, learned Executing Court did not give any reasons as to compliance of the aforesaid objections by it and also satisfaction of the aforesaid explanation offered by the 1st respondent/D.Hr. learned Executing Court simply passed the order holding register and issue warrant under Order 21 Rule 35 of CPC, to J.Drs Nos.1 to 4 through Court and RPAD and call on 24.02.2026.
41. Perusal of the record would also reveal that Mr. Atul P Desai filed E.A.No.24 of 2026 in E.P.No.47 of 2026 seeking a direction to Bailiff to break open the lock of the schedule property and deliver vacant and actual possession of the schedule property by putting D.Hr. in possession thereof.
42. As discussed supra, M/s AB Holding Company is the D.Hr. Mr. Atul P Desai has filed an application vie E.A.No.12 of 2026 along with E.P.No.47 of 2016 seeking permission of the Court to represent M/s AB Holding Company, the same was allowed. Therefore, M/s AB Holding Company represented by its Managing Partner & Chief Executive Mr. Atul P Desai has to file the aforesaid application E.A.No.24 of 2026 seeking a direction to bailiff to break open the lock. Without considering the said aspect, vide order dated 27.02.2026, learned Executing Court allowed the said application directing the Bailiff to break open the lock and deliver possession of the schedule – A and B properties, if necessary, to remove any obstruction, if any, in accordance with law and deliver vacant and actual physical possession of the schedule-A and B properties to the 1st respondent/D.Hr.. if remind by take up by police aid, for execution of the warrant, the Bailiff is directed to prepare a detailed panchanamas at the time of execution and submit a compliance report to the Court by 18.03.2026.
43. Perusal of the said order would reveal that there are corrections. There is no initial of the officer of the learned Executing Court. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, 1st respondent has not sought any police aid in E.A.No.24 of 2026 in E.P.No.47 of 2026.
44. As discussed supra, there are corrections in the docket order dated 27.02.2026 in E.A.No.24 of 2026. In the certified copy of the said order, learned executing Court observed that “if remind by take up by police aid, for effective execution of the warrant, the Bailiff is directed to prepare a detailed panchanama at the time of execution and submit a compliance report to the Court. Call on 18.03.2026.
45. The aforesaid part of order does not make sense. In fact, in the corrected portion of the said order, it is mentioned as ‘if required’, but in the certified copy of the order, it is mentioned as ‘remind’. Thus, learned Executing Court passed the orders dated 07.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 in a hurried manner, without considering the aforesaid aspects, provisions and law laid down by the Apex Court and various High Courts.
46. As discussed supra, Rule 240 Civil Rules of Practice, certified copy of the decree to be filed. It says that the Judgment creditor shall, together with the first petition for execution or transmission of a decree, file in court a certified copy of the decree sought to be executed, and shall not be required, upon any subsequent application, to file a further copy or the same decree, unless the copy already filed has been sent to another court, under Order XXXI Rule 6 of the Code, and has not been returned and application is made to the court which passed the decree for simultaneous execution. Thus, the word ‘shall’ is used. Therefore, D.Hr. has to file certified copy of the decree (award in the present case) necessarily along with the EP. In the present case, 1st respondent/DHr. has not filed certified copy of the Award.
47. It is apt to note that 1st respondent has filed an Execution Application along with the E.P. under Section 151 of CPC to dispense with filing of certified copy of the said Award contending that the sole arbitrator who passed the Award is no more. They have filed a Copy Application before the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad seeking certified copy of the said Award. The same was returned with an endorsement that certified copy is not available and certified copy of the Award cannot be furnished. Even then, learned Executing Court without giving any reason, allowed the said application holding ‘Heard. Petition is allowed.” Thus, it is not a reasoned order. Any order passed without reasons is an order passed without application of mind and the same is non-est. Thus, the learned Executing Court committed procedural irregularity.
48. As discussed supra, Mr. Atul P Desai, has filed an application under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice vide E.A.No.12 of 2026 seeking permission of the Court to represent M/s AB Holding Company/D.Hr.
49. As discussed supra, it is M/s AB Holding Company represented by its Managing Partner and Chief Executive Mr. Atul P Desai, who filed the aforesaid Arbitration Application, he only represented the said firm in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 vide Arb.O.P.No.1663 of 2012. Even then, he has filed the aforesaid application. Without considering the said aspects, learned Executing Court allowed the said application holding ‘Heard. Petition is allowed”. Even the said order is also not a reasoned order and no reasons were assigned. Any order passed without assigning reasons is an order without application of mind and it is non-est.
50. It is also apt to note that in both the aforesaid orders, there is no date.
51. As discussed supra, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Act, vide AOP No.1663 of 2012 challenging the Award dated 03.05.2012 in A.A.No.22 of 2011 was dismissed on 11.06.2024. However, 1st respondent /D.Hr. has filed the E.P. only on 07.01.2026. The same was returned along with the aforesaid objections on 20.06.2026, the same was re-submitted on 28.06.2026 again the same was returned on 30.06.2026 on the ground that the 1st respondent did not comply with the objections raised by the Executing the Court. The same was re-submitted on 02.02.2026
52. Perusal of the record would also reveal that the 1st respondent mentioned about preferring of an appeal by the petitioners under Section 37 of CPC vide CMA No.611 of 2024, pendency of the same and that there is no stay in the said CMA.
53. Thus, the 1st respondent filed the aforesaid E.P. almost after one year six and half months from the date of dismissal of the Arb.OP. No.1663 of 2012. The said E.P. was returned thrice without passing any orders on satisfying with the explanation offered by 1st respondent and also with regard to compliance of the objections raised and learned Executing Court passed an order “Register E.P. and Issue warrant”. There is no date mentioned in the said order. No reasons were assigned.
54. Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC deals with notice to show cause against execution in certain cases. The same is relevant and extracted below:-
(1) Where an application for execution is made-
(a) more than two years after the date of the decree, or
(b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree or where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of section 44A, or
(c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent, the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him:
Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of more than two years having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within two years from the date of the last order against the party against whom execution is applied for, made on any previous application for execution, or in consequence of the application being made against the legal representative of the judgment-debtor if upon a previous application for execution against the same person the Court has ordered execution to issue against him.
(2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to preclude the Court from issuing any process in execution of a decree without issuing the notice thereby prescribed, if, for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of justice.
55. There is no dispute that the Executing Court can issue warrant without issuing notice to J.Drs. if the E.P. is filed within two years from the date of dismissal of the aforesaid application filed by the petitioners under Section 34 of the Act, 1996. At the same time, the Executing Court has to assign reasons for issuing warrant dispensing with the notice to the petitioners/J.Drs. The said principle was also laid down by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Dr. Subhash Chandra Jain and the relevant paragraphs are extracted below:-
24. In view of the aforesaid discussion and as has been observed in foregoing paragraph 15, if an execution application is filed within a period of two years from the date of judgment and decree, notice to the judgment debtor is not necessary, but the period of two years shall start from the date of final order/judgment/decree. Meaning thereby, if an appeal is preferred against a judgment and decree sought to be executed, the requisite period of two years under Order XXI Rule 22 of C.P.C. has to be computed from the date of decision of the said appeal, which may be First Appeal, Second Appeal or the appeal filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court.
25. Although Order XXI Rule 22 of CPC provides that no notice is necessary if the execution petition is filed within two years from the date of final order but an exception must be carved out in certain cases of decrees for possession/eviction. It is a settled principle of law that the decree-holder should not be deprived of the fruits of the decree. However, if the execution is carried out with undue haste, or if there is element of fraud, collusion, or procedural irregularity, and the judgment debtor is dispossessed even before the appeal period lapses, it may result in grave injustice. Particularly where the possession of a house, shop, or land is taken away, which directly affects residence or livelihood, the judgment debtor must be given a fair opportunity to approach the appellate Court.
56. In the present case, the Executing Court did not assign any reasons while issuing warrant under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC, which is relevant and extracted below:-
Order 21 Rule 35 of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Decree for immovable property:
(1) Where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property.
(2) Where a decree is for the joint possession of immovable property, such possession shall be delivered by affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming by beat of drum, or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree.
(3) Where possession of any building on enclosure is to be delivered and the person in possession, being bound by the decree, does not afford free access, the Court, through its officers, may, after giving reasonable warning and facility to any woman not appearing in public according to the customs of the country to withdraw, remove or open any lock or bolt or break open any door or do any other act necessary for putting the decree-holder in possession.
57. In the present case, the Executing Court did not follow the aforesaid procedure while passing an order dated 09.02.2026 and 27.02.2026. Thus, the Executing Court committed procedural irregularity.
58. It is also apt to note that the sole arbitrator has passed an Award dated 03.05.2012 in A.A.No.22 of 2011. The relevant part of the said order is extracted below:-
i) The claimant has not committed breach of any of the terms of Ex.C.-7 and C-8 development agreements dated 30-6-2004 and it cannot be said that the said agreements stood cancelled and have become unenforceable due to efflux of time or on account of any alleged failure on his part in complying with the terms and conditions specified there in. The said two development agreements are still valid, legal, subsisting and enforceable and binding on the respondents, who are the Legal Representatives of the deceased Sri.N.Pitamber Naidu, and the claimant is entitled to develop the "A" and "B" schedule properties as per the terms of the said agreements as and when the obstacles created by the interim injunction orders passed by the High Court in CCCAMP.No.11607/2004 are removed, and when there is no legal bar for him to take necessary steps to proceed with the development activity as per the terms of the two agreements;
ii) The respondents will be liable to execute fresh General Power of Attorneys in favour of the claimant in case such fresh General Power of Attorneys are required, apart from the General Power of Attorneys contained in Exs.C-7 and C-8 to enable the claimant to perform the various activities enumerated in Sub-Clause 1 to 24 of Clause 36 in Ex.C-7 and similar Clauses contained in Ex.C-8 agreements;
59. It is apt to note that Smt. N.Dhanalaxmi, sister of Sri Pitambar Naidu, husband and father of the petitioners herein respectively, has filed a suit in O.S.No.152 of 1995 seeking share in schedule – A and B properties. The said suit was dismissed on 10.04.2004. Thereafter, the said Sri Pitambar Naidu has entered into the aforesaid two registered development agreements – cum – GPAs both dated 30.06.2004 with D.Hr. Thereafter, the said Smt. N.Dhanalaxmi, preferred an appeal CCCA No.206 of 2004 challenging the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2004 in O.S.No.152 of 1995. She has filed interlocutory applications vide CCCA MP Nos.11607 and 11638 of 2004 and vide orders both dated 1308.2004, this Court granted interim injunction and interim stay of the said judgment and decree. The said interim stay was vacated and the said appeal was dismissed as withdrawn on 19.07.2017.
60. Referring to the same, it is the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Execution Petition filed by 1st respondent is beyond the scope of the aforesaid Award dated 03.05.2012.
61. Whereas, it is the contention of the 1st respondent that the aforesaid E.P. is well within the ambit of the aforesaid award. However, the Executing Court has to consider the said aspect.
62. As discussed supra, the 1st respondent has also filed an affidavit stating that the petitioners have already preferred an appeal under Section 37 of the Act vide CMA No.611 of 2024 and the same is pending. There is no interim order in it. Without considering the said aspects, the learned Executing Court passed the orders dated 09.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 in hurried manner and in gross violation of the aforesaid procedure.
63. It is also the specific contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the E.P. is barred by limitation. The Executing Court has to consider the said aspect. The same were not considered by the learned Executing Court while passing the aforesaid orders.
64. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of this Court that two Bailiffs went to the subject property for execution of the warrant. In proof of the same, learned counsel for the petitioners filed photographs. Perusal of the same would reveal that the learned Executing Court has directed bailiff to execute warrant and along with him Mr. B.V.Reddy, another bailiff, is also present. The said fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for respondents Nos.1 and 2.
65. It is apt to note that learned counsel for the petitioners specifically contended that the E.P. filed in learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad straightaway is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on the principle laid down in Potlabathuni Srikanth (supra), a Full Bench of High Court of Bombay in Fountain Head Developers (supra), Cheran Properties Limited (supra), Sundaram Finance Limited (supra), M/s Nkg Infrastructure Limited (supra) of High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that 1st respondent/D.Hr. sought to execute the Award passed by learned sole arbitrator and not the order passed by learned XIV Additional chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in a petition filed under Section 34 of the Act, 1996, and therefore, E.P. filed by 1st respondent straightaway in XIV Additional Chief Judge Court is not maintainable. There is force in the said contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. However, learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, passed the aforesaid orders dated 09.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 without issuing notice to the petitioners and without affording them an opportunity.
66. Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent/D.Hr. would contend that the petitioners have not raised the said ground at an earliest point of time and therefore, they cannot take the said plea in the present revisions. He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex court in Pathuma vs. Kuntalan Kutty ((1981) 3 SCC 589) and Heralal Patni vs. Sri Kalinath (AIR 1962 SC 199). He would further submit that the objections taken by the petitioners are too technical and should not be entertained. He also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Kiran Singh and others vs. Cheman Pashwan ((1954) 1 SCC 710).
67. Sri R.Sushanth Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent/D.Hr. would further contend that EP filed by 1st respondent is within the limitation and he also placed reliance on the principle laid down by Delhi High Court in Growth Techno Projects Limited vs. Eshwar Industries Limited ((2024) SCC OnLine Delhi 4510)
68. As discussed supra, learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, passed orders dated 09.02.2026 and 27.02.2026 without putting the petitioners on notice and affording them an opportunity. Therefore, it is for the petitioners and 1st respondent to raise all the aforesaid grounds/contentions before the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, and it is for the said Court to consider the same.
69. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, these revisions are disposed of:-
i. The impugned orders dated 09.02.2026 and consequential order dated 27.02.2026 passed in E.P.No.47 of 2026 in A.A.No.22 of 2011 by the learned XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, are hereby set aside.
ii. Learned Executing Court shall decide the aforesaid E.P. No. 47 of 2026 strictly in accordance with law after hearing both the parties. Both the parties are at liberty to raise all the grounds / contentions which they have raised in the present CRPs before the learned Executing Court in E.P.No.47 of 2026 and learned Executing Court shall consider the same.
iii. Learned Executing Court shall consider the contentions of the petitioners that 1st respondent/D.Hr. cannot file the Execution Petition straightaway in XIV Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad and decide the same by considering the principle laid down in the aforesaid judgments.
iv. In Periyammal (dead through L.Rs.) vs. V.Rajamani (2025 INSC 329), the Apex Court directed Executing Courts to dispose of execution petitions within six (6) months without fail.
v. In the light of the same, both the petitioners and respondents shall cooperate with the Executing Court in disposing of the aforesaid E.P. in accordance with law.
vi. Till disposal of the said E.P., both the petitioners and respondents shall maintain status quo ante with regard to the subject property in all respects.
vii. Learned Executing Court shall consider the aforesaid aspects while deciding the Execution Petition.
viii. Registry shall transmit the original record to the Executing Court under proper acknowledgment.
ix. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these revisions shall stand closed.