Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Smt. Bommareddy Rukmini vs Kovvuri Sathireddy Died on 18 February, 2022
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE B. S. BHANUMATHI
Civil Revision Petition no.109 of 2019
ORDER:
The civil revision petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, is filed by the petitioners/judgment debtors 4,5, 6 & 8 aggrieved
by the docket order, dated 19.11.2018, passed in EASR 527 of 2018 in
E.P.No.53 of 2010 in O.S.No.42 of 2006 on the file of the Court of Senior
Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District.
2. Heard Mr. P. Vinayaka Swamy, learned counsel appearing for the
revision petitioners - judgment debtors and Mr. N. Siva Reddy, learned
counsel appearing for the respondents/Decree Holders.
3. The order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the executing Court, which
is impugned in this revision, reads as under:
"Heard the counsel. Perused the entire record.
This petition is filed after confirmation of the sale in EP
No.53/2010 on 29.12.2017.
Leaving aside the various contentions raised by the JDrs
about the maintainability of the EP under Order 21 Rule 90
CPC when the J.Drs shall state as to how the present petition
is maintainable when the sale stood confirmed and
consequently, as the Sale Certificate is also issued in favour of
the Auction purchaser".
4. This revision is directed against the order by which the petition
was returned even before registering the same. Therefore, the scope of
the revision does not include merits of the contentions raised in that
application and thereby, whatever arguments advanced on merits of the
contentions raised in the said petition do not deserve consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the following
decisions: (i) Nani Gopal Paul v. T. Prasad Singh1 (ii) Sanjay v. Anil and
others 2 ; (iii) J. Rajiv Subramaniyan v. Pandiyas and others 3 and (iv)
Chandala Veera v. Satyanarayana @ Babulu v. Chandala Sesha Ratnam
(died) and others4.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the following
decisions: (i) Jagati Thimmaraju v. Uppuluri Brahmana5, (ii) Vummethala
Somamma v. Thameeru Balanagamma6, (iii) M. Rajagopal Reddy v. State
Bank of India and Other , (iv) Kotamreddy Balarami Reddy v.
Kodandaramaswamy Temple, Buchireddypalem, Nellore and another 8 ,
and (v) Yeturu Dasaratharami Reddy v. Yeturu Pujjamma and others9.
7. Since this Court is not going into the merits of the rival
contentions, the ratio in the aforesaid decisions relied on by the parties
is not discussed herein, in detail.
8. Since the sale certificate was issued by the time the petition in
EASR 528 dated 30.01.2018 in EP 53 of 2010 was filed, the Execution
Court returned the petition asking the petitioners to explain as to how
the petition is maintainable when the sale stood confirmed and
consequently, sale certificate was also issued. Instead of approaching
AIR 1995 SUPREME COURT 1971
2017 (5) ALD 4 (SC)
(2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 651
2018 (6) ALD 414
1998 (3) ALD 404
2002 (2) An. W. R 485
2006(2) ALT 717
2005 (2) ALT 439
1979 AIR (Andhra Pradesh) 111
the same Court explaining the maintainability of the petition, this
revision is filed taking grounds on merits of the contentions raised in the
said application. Even before this Court, the revision petitioners failed
to explain how the petition is maintainable after the sale stood
confirmed and the sale certificate was issued.
9. In the facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any merit
in the revision petition.
10. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________
B. S. BHANUMATHI, J
18.02.2022
RAR
