* THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY + CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2320 and 2825 of 2010 % 23-7-2010. # P. Ganganna. ..... Petitioner Vs. K. Surendranath and another. .....Respondents ! Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C. Prakash Reddy ^ Counsel for Respondents: --- < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND TEN CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2320 and 2825 of 2010 Between: P. Ganganna. ..... Petitioner AND K. Surendranath and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri C. Prakash Reddy Counsel for Respondents: --- The Court made the following:- COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common order, dated 22-4-2010, passed in E.A.Nos.300 and 301 of 2009 in EA No.37 of 2009 in E.P.No.62 of 2008 in O.S.No.118 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool. The petitioner is a third party to the suit and the E.P., mentioned above. Respondent No.2 herein is the Judgment Debtor (hereinafter referred to as “the J.Dr”) in O.S.No.118 of 2007 filed by respondent No.1. The said suit was decreed in favour of respondent No.1-Decree Holder (hereinafter referred to as “the D.Hr”) by judgment and decree, dated 18-12-2007. In order to execute the said decree, the D.Hr., filed E.P.No.62 of 2008. The petitioner, who claimed to have purchased the E.P.schedule property, after passing of the decree, under a registered sale deed dated 11-7-2008 from the J.Dr., filed E.A.No.37 of 2009 in the said E.P., resisting the execution on the ground that he is a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration from the J.Dr. In the said E.A., the petitioner filed E.A.No.300 of 2009 for summoning the Branch Manager of the Central Bank of India, Kurnool (for short “the Bank”), and E.A.No.301 of 2009 for calling for three documents, viz., authorization letter stated to have been issued to the petitioner by the J.Dr., the payment slip for Rs.1,50,000/- of loan account of the J.Dr., and the mortgaged documents pertaining to the house in question. Both these applications have been dismissed by the learned Additional Senior Civil Judge under the order impugned in these revision petitions. At the hearing, Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that as his client is a bona fide purchaser of the E.P. schedule property for a valuable consideration, summoning of the Branch Manager and the documents from the Bank is necessary to establish the petitioner’s plea. The learned counsel further contended that the lower Court committed a serious error in rejecting the petitioner’s applications filed for these purposes. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In the affidavit filed in support of E.A.No.301 of 2009, the petitioner has stated that the J.Dr., mortgaged the E.P. schedule house to the Bank; that towards payment of consideration for the sale deed, the petitioner paid Rs.2,00,000/- to the Bank on behalf of the J.Dr., on 17.12.2007 as per the authorization letter dated 15-12- 2007 given by the J.Dr., in his favour; that the petitioner paid the balance amount of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Bank; and that after paying the further balance of Rs.6,50,000/- towards the sale consideration in cash to the J.Dr., he got the sale deed executed in his favour and took possession of the house. The petitioner further stated that he has produced and marked the payment slip for Rs.2,00,000/- as Ex.A2 in his evidence; that he has lost the payment slip for Rs.1,50,000/-; and that as the said slip is available with the Bank, the abovementioned documents are necessary to be summoned. A similar affidavit was filed in support of E.A.No.300 of 2009 and for the same reasons, referred to above, the petitioner sought for summoning the Senior Branch Manager of the Bank for giving evidence. In its order the Court below has reasoned that as Ex.A.2 receipt issued by the Bank mentioned the name of the J.Dr alone, it is reasonable to assume that even if the so called payment slip for Rs.1,50,000/- is summoned, it may not be containing the name of the petitioner; and that, therefore, no purpose will be served by summoning such a receipt. The lower Court has also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner has failed to mention the dates on which the above mentioned sums were paid to the Bank and the J.Dr., respectively. In its effort to point out the vagueness of the pleas raised by the petitioner in support of the applications, the petitioner’s case was further tested by the Court below by pointing out that the sale deed executed in favour of the petitioner did not contain any recital pertaining to discharge of the loan by the petitioner to the Bank on behalf of the J.Dr. This is a case where the petitioner, who is a third party to the suit and the E.P., proceedings, seeks to defeat the rights of the D.Hr. It is, therefore, necessary for him to come up with specific pleas, apart from conducting the case with due diligence. Before the petitioner filed the said two applications, he has given evidence in chief- examination in part in E.A.No.37 of 2009. Though the petitioner has not filed the copy of his deposition, the order of the Court below has referred to the relevant part of his evidence, which goes to show that he failed to state in his evidence as to when he has paid the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- to the Bank and the sum of Rs.6,50,000/- to the J.Dr. From the finding given by the Court below, it is obvious that the sale deed executed by the J.Dr., in favour of the petitioner did not even refer to the petitioner’s discharging the bank dues on behalf of the J.Dr. All these omissions on the part of the petitioner failed to inspire the lower Court on his bona fides in filing the said applications. A party cannot be allowed by the Courts to indulge in a speculative litigation by summoning the persons unconnected with the litigation or the documents in the custody of such a person on his mere request without his laying a strong foundation and assigning convincing reasons therefor. Allowing such applications, especially, by the Executing Courts, would not only delay the proceedings, thereby defeating the legitimate rights of the opposite parties, but also giving room for the parties to indulge in vexatious litigation, frustrating the efforts of the decree holders to execute the decrees. The proverbial saying that the vows of the decree holder commence with his obtaining decree is not a mere figure of speech but a stark reality. Instances of the decree holders not being alive at least till the execution of the decree, if not to enjoy its fruits, are not uncommon. The decree holder is caught in the vortex of procedural delays on the one side and the ingenuity of his unscrupulous and resourceful adversary on the other. If he is fortunate to see the result of the execution proceedings, he is too drained of all his mental, physical and financial resources to rejoice over his success. It is, therefore, imperative for the Executing Courts to make an endeavour to use their skills to separate the chaff from the grain by weeding out vexatious petitions aimed at stalling the execution proceedings, as has been done in this case, at the earliest. By undertaking this measure, the fading faith of the people in the efficacy of the justice delivery mechanism can, to some extent, be resurrected. The absence of relevant details, such as the dates or at least proximity of time around which the two payments were made to the Bank and the J.Dr., the absence of reference to the petitioner’s alleged payments to the Bank in the sale deed and the belatedness of the applications filed after the petitioner examined himself in- chief are the reasons enough for the Court below to reject the petitioner’s applications in limine. On the premises as above, I do not find any error, jurisdictional or otherwise, in order to interfere with the order passed by the lower Court. The Civil Revisions Petitions are accordingly dismissed. ----------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:23-7-2010 GHN/MNR Note: LR copies to be marked. (BO) MNR