The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati has ruled that the mention of an incorrect provision of law or the non-mention of any provision is not a valid ground for a court to reject an application if the power to pass the requested order exists within that court. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari passed this order while allowing a Civil Revision Petition filed against the dismissal of an Execution Petition (EP) by the IX Additional District Judge, Chodavaram.
Background
The petitioner, Allu Nageswara Rao, was a decree-holder. Initially, the respondent authorities (District Forest Officer – cum – Authorized Officer) had passed a confiscation order under the provisions of the Forest Act regarding a vehicle (Registration No. AP 27TT 9091). The petitioner challenged this in F.A. No. 05 of 2021.
On August 12, 2024, the IX Additional District Judge, Chodavaram, allowed the appeal, set aside the confiscation orders, and directed the 1st respondent to release the seized property to the appellant. Although a revision (C.R.P. No. 1670 of 2025) was filed against this appellate order before the High Court, it remained pending without any stay.
When the respondents (Judgment Debtors) failed to comply with the decree, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 21 of 2025. In the petition, the decree-holder cited Order 21 Rule 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), requesting the punishment of the Judgment Debtors for willful disobedience.
Lower Court’s Decision
On February 5, 2026, the Execution Court dismissed the petition on two primary grounds:
- Inapplicability of Cited Provisions: The court held that Order 21 Rules 37 and 38 of the CPC apply specifically to the execution of money decrees, which was not the case here.
- Lack of Proof of Disobedience: The court observed that the decree-holder failed to prove that the Judgment Debtors willfully and intentionally disobeyed the decree.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the petitioner argued that the decree was for the release of specific movable property and was thus executable under Order 21 Rule 31 of the CPC. He contended that “mere mentioning of the wrong provision… would not take away the jurisdiction of the Court,” provided the Court possessed the authority under the correct provision of law.
The learned Government Pleader for Arbitration, appearing for the respondents, conceded that while the decree could be executed under Order 21 Rule 31 CPC, it could not be executed under the rules cited by the petitioner (Rules 37 & 38). He maintained that there was no illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner should have applied under the correct provision.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari observed that while the Execution Court was technically correct that the petitioner had cited the wrong rules, it erred in dismissing the petition as non-maintainable. The Court emphasized that judicial authority is derived from law, not from the specific labels used in an application.
The High Court observed:
“the jurisdiction of the Court is not taken away by mere mention of the wrong provision of law or even non-mention of any provision of law. When the law confers the authority on the Court and the action can be taken under the correct provision of law, the Court, simply on the basis of non applicability of referred provision of law… cannot reject the petition as not maintainable.”
The High Court further noted that the Execution Court should have independently considered whether the decree was executable under any other correct provision, specifically Order 21 Rule 31 CPC, which pertains to the decree for specific movable property.
To support this conclusion, the Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Pruthvirajsinh Nodhubha Jadeja v. Jayeshkumar Chhakaddas Shah (2019) 9 SCC 533, which held:
“it is well-settled law that mere non-mentioning of an incorrect provision is not fatal to the application if the power to pass such an order is available with the court.”
Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Petition and set aside the lower court’s order dated February 5, 2026. The Court restored E.P. No. 21 of 2025 for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, specifically directing the Execution Court to keep in view the provisions of Order 21 Rule 31 of the CPC.
Case Details
Case Title: Allu Nageswara Rao v. District Forest Officer – cum – Authorized Officer & another
Case No.: Civil Revision Petition No. 922 of 2026
Bench: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari
Date: 01.05.2026
