The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that judgment debtors who intentionally evade court notices and fail to show sufficient cause for condoning delays in seeking to set aside ex parte orders cannot be permitted to prolong execution proceedings.

The Court observed that the judgment debtors' applications seeking condonation of delay in challenging the ex parte orders appeared to have been filed only to further drag on the execution proceedings, which had remained pending for 24 years.

The dispute arose from execution proceedings initiated in 2002 to enforce a decree passed in 1997 in a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The appellate court upheld the decree in 2000. During execution, certain transferees of the decree holders sought to come on record to execute the decree. The judgment debtors were subsequently set ex parte in the applications filed by the transferees.

Against this backdrop, the central issue was whether the judgment debtors had shown sufficient cause for the delays in seeking to set aside the ex parte orders and whether the executing court had rightly rejected their applications.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice K. Sreenivasa Reddy observed:

“Having fully aware of the execution proceedings, the petitions appear to have been filed only to further drag on the execution proceedings. Therefore, considering these aspects, the Executing Court rightly held that there is sufficient service of notice on the petitioners, and inspite of the same and having well aware of the execution proceedings, they did not make their appearance, and this is only to delay and drag on the execution proceedings. There is no infirmity or perversity.

In the case on hand, the suit is of the year 1988 and the E.P. is of the year 2002. Suit was decreed on 27.1.1997 and the appeal preferred against the decree was dismissed on 20.07.2000. More than 26 years has elapsed after dismissal of the First Appeal. The Execution Petition has been pending for the last 24 years. The petitioners/judgment debtors successfully dragged on the proceedings. Therefore, the Executing Court is directed to complete the E.P. proceedings pursuant to the aforesaid directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Circular instructions of this Court, expeditiously.”

Before the High Court, the judgment debtors challenged the dismissal of their applications seeking condonation of delays of 113 days and 179 days in filing petitions to set aside the ex parte orders. They contended that they had neither received notices nor known about the proceedings and had filed their applications soon after learning of the orders.

They also questioned the impleadment of the transferees. According to them, the original decree holders' legal representatives had not produced documents establishing their status, and the transferees could not execute the decree merely on the basis of the transfer deeds.

The decree holders, however, submitted that the judgment debtors had intentionally evaded notices sent to the addresses mentioned in earlier appeal proceedings. They pointed out that two petitioners had previously given their addresses as Tadepalligudem and had not denied residing there.

They further submitted that, after the judgment debtors failed to receive notices, the executing court ordered substituted service through publication in the local daily 'Prajasakthi'. Despite publication, the judgment debtors did not appear.

Examining the record, the Court noted that one petitioner had filed a counter in the execution petition but remained absent in the applications, while the other petitioners had remained absent in both proceedings. It found that the supporting affidavits disclosed “no cause, much less sufficient cause” for condoning the delays.

On this basis, the Court found no infirmity in the rejection of the applications to set aside the ex parte orders.

The Court separately upheld the impleadment of the transferees as decree holders. It held that, under the transfer deeds, they were entitled to be subrogated to the original decree holders' recovery rights and to come on record in the execution proceedings. The Court also upheld the executing court's decision to overrule the judgment debtors' objections and allow the execution petition to proceed.

The Court further referred to the Supreme Court's directions requiring High Courts to ensure that pending execution petitions are disposed of within six months. Pursuant to these directions, the Andhra Pradesh High Court issued Circular No. 04 of 2025 (ROC No. 208/SO/2025), dated April 28, 2025, directing the district judiciary to decide and dispose of pending execution petitions within six months without fail.

In view of the prolonged pendency, the Court directed the executing court to complete the execution proceedings expeditiously, in accordance with the directions for time-bound disposal of execution petitions and the High Court's administrative circular.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed all five civil revision petitions.

Counsel for the Petitioners: Devalaraju Anil Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents: P. Rajasekhar