V.Sattiraju vs M/S.Madras Fertilizers Ltd
2022 Latest Caselaw 3164 AP

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2843 OF 2014

ORDER:

The 1st respondent/DHR filed a suit in O.S.No.117 of 2004 on

the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, against

the petitioner/JDR and others, for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,77,144/-.

The suit was decreed on 30.06.2006. The case of the 1st

respondent/DHR is that after passing of the decree in the suit, in spite

of repeated requests to discharge the decretal amount, the judgment

debtors failed to pay the amount and therefore, he filed E.P.No.46 of

2007 in O.S.No.117 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge,

Narsapur, West Godavari District, seeking sale of the E.P. schedule

properties of the judgment debtors in public auction, realise the

decretal amount and to deposit the sale proceeds into Court with

subsequent interest and costs as claimed in the execution petition and

to pay the amount realised to them. On 13.11.2007, the Senior Civil

Judge, Narsapur, ordered for proclamation of sale on 17.01.2008 and

publication of the sale in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper.

Accordingly, the sale of Item No.3 of the petition schedule property

was held on 17.01.2008 and the 2nd respondent became the highest

bidder for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- and the 2nd respondent had

deposited the entire amount into Court on the same day. Thereafter

i.e., on 02.06.2014 the sale was confirmed and the E.P. was closed.

Challenging the auction proceedings dated 17.01.2008 and the

consequent issuance of sale certificate dated 02.06.2014 in favour of

NV,J C.R.P.No.2843 of 2014

the 2nd respondent, which was registered on 09.10.2014 vide

document No.4855 of 2014 in the office of the Sub-Registrar,

Palakollu, West Godavari District in favour of the 2nd respondent, the

petitioner/JDR preferred the present civil revision petition.

2. Heard Sri Ch. Srinivasa Raju, learned counsel for the

petitioner/JDR, Sri K. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the 1st

respondent/DHR, and Sri B. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the

2nd respondent/auction purchaser, and perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Item No.3 of

the E.P. schedule property was not at all attached and no publication

as well as no tom tom were made for sale of the said property in the

auction. He also contends that without considering the irregularities

took place in conducting the auction proceedings and without giving

any opportunity of hearing to the JDRs and third party claimants, the

Court below confirmed the sale and directed issuance of sale

certificate in favour of the 2nd respondent vide orders

dated 02.06.2014. He further contends that without following the

procedure as contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, the

Court below closed the E.P. The Court below did not take into

consideration the fact that the 1st respondent obtained an ex parte

decree dated 30.06.2014 in O.S.No.117 of 2004. He, therefore, prays

to allow the revision.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the 2nd

respondent/auction purchaser submits that the 2nd respondent had

NV,J C.R.P.No.2843 of 2014

participated in the auction conducted on 17.01.2008 for sale of Item

No.3 of the petition schedule property. The 2nd respondent became

the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- and on the even date,

he deposited the entire amount into Court and he is the lawful

purchaser. After confirmation of the sale, a sale certificate was issued

in favour of the 2nd respondent. There are no merits in the revision and

it is liable to be dismissed.

5. The docket proceedings in E.P.No.46 of 2007 in O.S.No.117 of

2004 categorically reveals that on 13.11.2007 the Court below ordered

for proclamation of sale of petition schedule property on 17.01.2008

and publication of the same in Eenadu Telugu Daily Newspaper, after

the sale notices issued on the JDRs were returned unserved, and that

on 31.01.2008, it is noted that the publication of sale was filed into

Court and sale was conducted on 17.01.2008 at 4.30 p.m. for Item

No.3 of the petition schedule property and the 2nd respondent became

the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.12,50,000/- and he deposited the

entire amount into Court on the same day. Subsequently, the Court

below confirmed the sale and closed the E.P. on 02.06.2014.

Moreover, the petitioner has not filed any application before the Court

below to set aside the ex parte decree dated 30.06.2006 passed in

O.S.No.117 of 2014 and the said decree became final. In view of the

above, it appears that the Court below followed the procedure as

contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, the

NV,J C.R.P.No.2843 of 2014

contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be

sustained.

6. Moreover, the petitioner is having an alternative statutory

remedy of filing an application before the Court below seeking to set

aside the sale held in the E.P. on the ground of irregularities or fraud

as envisaged under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. The petitioner is also

having another alternative remedy of filing an application seeing to set

aside the sale by depositing the E.P. amount into Court as

contemplated under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC. But, the petitioner did

not choose to file any of those applications before the Court below

within the stipulated period after the sale of petition schedule

property. Without availing such remedies, the petitioner preferred this

civil revision before this Court on 27.08.2014 without any valid

grounds and much later to the confirmation of sale in favour of the 2 nd

respondent on 02.06.2014. Further, the Court below issued the sale

certificate in favour of the 2nd respondent on the date of confirmation

sale itself and the document was registered on 09.10.2014 vide

document No.4855/2014 in the office of the S.R.O., Palakollu, and the

2nd respondent got title over the said property being the lawful

purchaser of the Item No.3 of the petition schedule property.

7. In the light of the above, this Court is of the considered view

that there are no merits in the revision petition and it is liable to be

dismissed.

NV,J C.R.P.No.2843 of 2014

8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There

shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall

stand closed.

____________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 30th June, 2022 cbs

NV,J C.R.P.No.2843 of 2014

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2843 OF 2014

30th June, 2022 cbs