Gurujala Hanumantha Reddy vs Kadavatina Venkateswarlu
2021 Latest Caselaw 5413 AP

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

   CIVIL REVISION PETITON Nos.5889 of 2017 & 483 of
                        2019

COMMON ORDER:-

      The petitioner herein had filed O.S.No.262 of 2013, for

recovery of certain amount of money which was allowed on

01.02.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed E.P.No.36 of

2016, for recovery of the said money, by way of sale of Ac.1.39

cents of land in Sy.No.963 of Patha Kadapa Village. In the

course of that Execution Petition, the petitioner had been

declared as the successful purchaser of the property, for a

sum of Rs.5 lakhs in the auction conducted on 06.09.2016.

At the stage of confirmation of sale, the respondents 1 to 4

filed a claim petition in E.A.No.1069 of 2016.

2. The claim of the respondents 1 to 4 was that they

had purchased the property from the 5th respondent on

09.01.2012, for an amount of Rs.19,81,000/- by way of an

agreement of sale, and subsequently filed O.S.No.31 of 2014

on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kadapa, for specific

performance of the agreement of sale. This suit was

compromised and an Award was passed by the Lok-Adalat,

Kadapa on 30.04.2016, under which, the 5th respondent

received the balance sale consideration. This petition was filed

with a prayer to set-aside the sale, conducted by the

Executing Court on 06.09.2015. Thereafter, E.A.No.333 of

2017 was filed to amend the said prayer by seeking a relief of

RRR,J CRP.Nos.5889 of 2017 &483 of 2019

raising the attachment over the petition schedule property

instead of seeking to setting aside of the sale.

3. The said application was allowed on 21.09.2017.

Aggrieved by the said order, C.R.P.No.5889 of 2017 was filed

before this Court.

4. While, C.R.P.No.5889 of 2017 was pending before

this Court, E.A.No.1069 of 2016 was allowed on 24.01.2019.

Aggrieved by the said order, C.R.P.No.483 of 2019 has been

filed.

5. As both the Civil Revision Petitions relate to the

same issue, they have been disposed of by this common order.

6. The contention of the petitioners in E.A.No.333 of

2017 was that there was an inadvertent mistake in the prayer

of the application and the same requires to be corrected as an

application under Order XXI Rule 58 of C.P.C. relates to

adjudication of claims or objections to attachment of property.

This contention of an inadvertent error found favour with the

Executing Court despite the opposition of the respondents in

the said application.

7. I have been heard the contentions raised by

Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri

Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel representing Sri V.R.Reddy

Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents and I am of the

opinion that the finding of the trial Court that there was an

inadvertent error does not require any reconsideration. Once

RRR,J CRP.Nos.5889 of 2017 &483 of 2019

such a finding is accepted, the grant of relief in the application

is only consequential. Further, as pointed by the Executing

Court, the said amendment does not in any manner cause any

prejudice to the petitioner in C.R.P.No.5889 of 2017 and

reduces multiplicity of proceedings.

8. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.5889 of 2017 requires to be

dismissed.

9. Ms.Sodum Anvesha, learned counsel for the

petitioner had taken considerable points to point out the

various issues, which according to her, require this Court to

intervene in C.R.P.No.483 of 2019.

10. Sri Sasidhar Reddy, learned counsel representing

Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the respondents

submits that the order under revision is passed under Order

XXI Rule 58 has raised a preliminary objection that a Civil

Revision Petition is not maintainable against an order passed

under order XXI Rule 58 of C.P.C. He relied upon a Judgment

of a learned Single Judge of the erstwhile High Court of A.P

reported in Ushasri Agro Agencies (Chit Funds), Khammam

Vs. Giridhar Auto Finance (P) Limited, Khammam and

Others1. In this Judgment, a learned Single Judge had held

that any order passed under Order XXI Rule 58 of C.P.C is

amenable to regular appeal under 41 C.P.C and as such, a

Civil Revision Petition would not be maintainable against this

order.

(2003) 2 ALD 370

RRR,J CRP.Nos.5889 of 2017 &483 of 2019

11. A similar view was taken by another learned Single

Judge of the erstwhile High Court of A.P in the case of Naga

Lakshmi and Others Vs Bichappa and Others2.

12. I am in respectful agreement that the ratio laid

down by the learned Single Judges in both the above cases

and hold that C.R.P.No.483 of 2019 is not maintainable in

view of the remedy of appeal under Order 41 of C.P.C being

available to the petitioner.

13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petitions are

dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, in this Civil

Revision Petitions shall stand closed.

___________________________________ JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO Date : 21-12-2021 RJS

2002(1) Andhra Weekly Reporter Page 105.

RRR,J CRP.Nos.5889 of 2017 &483 of 2019

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

CIVIL REVISION PETITON Nos.5889 of 2017 & 483 of

Date : 21-12-2021

RJS