IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4097 of 2010 Between: Bhukya Balu. … Petitioner/Judgment debtor And Gaddam Ramaiah …Respondent/Decree holder Counsel for the petitioner: Sri V.Brahmaiah Chowdary. Counsel for the respondent: None. This Court made the following: ORDER:- This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 16-8-2010, in E.P. No.85 of 2009 in O.S.No.209 of 1996 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, Nalgonda District. The petitioner is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.209 of 1996 filed by the respondent. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondent by judgment and decree, dated 16-12-1996, on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. The respondent filed E.P.No.51 of 2000 in the court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, for attachment and sale of the petition land. By order, dated 5-3-2007, the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, transferred the said E.P., to the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, for conducting sale on the ground that the petition land falls within the jurisdiction of the said Court. The said E.P., was returned by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, on the ground that necessary permission was not obtained from the District Court, Nalgonda, for transferring the said E.P. Thereupon, the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, dismissed the said E.P., on the ground of jurisdiction, giving liberty to the respondent to take steps for transfer of the decree to the proper Court for execution. The respondent has later filed E.P.No.85 of 2009 in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, for sale of the petition land to realize the decretal amount of Rs.41,031/-. The petitioner filed a counter-affidavit in the said E.P., by raising the sole objection, viz., that the E.P., is barred by limitation. The Court below rejected the said objection by holding that under Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short “the Act”) in computing the period of limitation for any application, the time during which the applicant was prosecuting with due diligence another civil proceeding shall be excluded where such proceeding is prosecuted in good faith and where it suffered from defect of jurisdiction or other causes enumerated in the provision. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Act may not strictly apply to the present case. It is not in dispute that the respondent has filed E.P.No.51 in the year 2000 itself in the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, which granted the decree. Since the petition property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, the Court at Kodad transferred the said E.P., to the Court at Huzurnagar, which in turn returned the said E.P., on the ground that permission for transfer of decree was not obtained from the District Court, Nalgonda. These facts would reveal that the respondent was bonafide pursuing the said E.P., in the Kodad Court, which transferred the same to the Court at Huzurnagar on the ground that the property is situated within the latter’s jurisdiction. Therefore, I do not find any error in the conclusion reached by the Court below that the respondent is entitled to the benefit of Section 14(2) of the Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even though E.P.No.51 of 2000 was dismissed by the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Kodad, on the short ground that the petition property is situated within the jurisdiction of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, and that the proper remedy for the respondent is to seek transfer of the decree to the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, for execution, the respondent has filed the present E.P., without getting the decree transferred to that Court. The learned counsel, however, fairly conceded that this issue was not raised before the trial Court. In the absence of such an issue being raised before the trial Court, it is not possible for this Court to render a finding thereon. A perusal of the order under revision does not indicate that the E.P., has not been closed. If the E.P., is still pending, the petitioner is permitted to raise the above mentioned ground, viz., that without getting the decree transferred to the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Huzurnagar, the respondent cannot pursue the E.P., in the said Court. If such an objection is raised, the Court below shall deal with the same while passing the final order in the E.P. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. -------------------------------------- C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY,J Date:08-7-2011 MNR