The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, in a significant order, dismissed a Civil Revision Petition and imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner’s counsel for misrepresenting facts to get a matter listed urgently. Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari ruled that a notice from an execution court asking a party to appear and file objections does not constitute a ‘case decided’ under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and that filing petitions based on misstatements is an abuse of the court’s process.
The court was hearing a Civil Revision Petition filed by Pilla Venkateswara Rao, the judgment debtor in a 2002 civil suit, challenging a notice issued by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada.
Background of the Case
The case originates from a suit (O.S.No.623 of 2002) filed by Kancherla Malyadri against Pilla Venkateswara Rao. On December 8, 2006, the trial court decreed the suit, directing Rao to vacate and deliver possession of a property to Malyadri. Rao challenged this decree by filing an appeal (A.S.No.33 of 2007), which was subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution on March 20, 2023.
Following the dismissal of the appeal, the decree-holder, Malyadri, initiated execution proceedings (E.P. No.73 of 2025). On September 2, 2025, the Execution Court issued a notice to Rao, instructing him to appear before the court on October 6, 2025, to file objections, if any. This notice became the subject of the Civil Revision Petition before the High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner’s counsel, Sri A. Ravindra Babu, argued that the revision was necessary because an application to set aside the dismissal of the appeal was still pending. He contended that since the appeal was dismissed for default and not on its merits, the trial court’s decree had not become final and was therefore not executable. He further submitted that the notice from the execution court was flawed as it failed to mention the specific provision of law under which it was issued.
High Court’s Analysis and Ruling
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari rejected the petitioner’s submissions, terming them “misconceived and having no substance.”
The Court clarified the legal position on the dismissal of an appeal for non-appearance, citing the explanation to Order 41 Rule 17 of the CPC. Justice Tilhari referred to Supreme Court judgments in Ashwathamma v. Lakshmamma and Benny D’Souza v. Melwin D’Souza, which established that an appellate court cannot dismiss an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant; it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution.
The judgment affirmed that “the dismissal of appeal even in default confirms the Trial Court’s decree.” It further noted that the mere pendency of an appeal or a restoration application does not operate as an automatic stay on the execution of a decree. The Court also held that the non-mention of a legal provision in the notice did not vitiate it or take away the jurisdiction of the Execution Court.
Crucially, the Court held the Civil Revision Petition to be not maintainable. Justice Tilhari observed, “This Court is of the considered view that the Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of CPC against the impugned notice asking the petitioner to appear in the execution case and to file the objections… is not maintainable. It is not a case decided by any Court subordinate to the High Court.” The Court stated that the petitioner should have approached the Execution Court in response to the notice instead of filing a revision petition.
Observations on Counsel’s Conduct
The Court took serious exception to the conduct of the petitioner’s counsel. Justice Tilhari noted that the matter was listed as a ‘lunch motion’ based on a misrepresentation. The urgency cited in the court slip was that a “notice for delivery of possession” had been issued, which the Court found to be false.
“The impugned notice is for appearance and filing objections in execution case and not for delivery of possession at this stage,” the judgment stated. The Court condemned this action, declaring, “Filing such petitions amounts to abuse and misuse of the process of this Court. Citing urgency for lunch motion on a non-existent ground by misstatement deserves imposition of costs.”
Quoting extensively from precedents on legal ethics, including J.S.Jadhav v. Mustafa Haji Mohamed Yusuf, the Court underscored the high standards of integrity expected from advocates, stating that the legal profession “cannot be allowed to become a sorriest of trades.”
Final Order
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed, and costs of Rs. 25,000 were imposed directly on the counsel for the petitioner. The amount is to be paid to the Andhra Pradesh High Court Legal Services Committee within three weeks. The Registrar (Judicial) has been directed to ensure compliance and list the matter on October 6, 2025, for perusal of the compliance report.
