Nerelle China Venkata Subba Rao v. Gunda Ankla Rao & Anr.

These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed by the same petitioner against the same respondents. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in OS No.130 of 1998 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge,

Macherla. The first respondent herein is the decree holder who obtained a decree for recovery of the money. As the amount was not paid, E.P.No. 51 of 2000 was filed and under the said E.P. property of the petitioner herein was sold and the second respondent is the auction purchaser. Thereafter, the petitioner herein filed EA No. 444 2008 to set aside the sale of his immovable property in EP No. 51 of 2000. In the said E.P. the petitioner applications i.e. EA Nos. 545 and 546 of 2009 for reopening of the petitioner’s side evidence examination of the Sub-Registrar, Macherla, with regard to the valuation certificate already issued by him, marked as Ex.P-2. Both the applications were dismissed by the impugned order dated 26.11.2009. EA No. 444 of 2008 was filed under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC seeking to set the sale dated 9.6.2008 on the ground of irregularities. The petitioner examined three witnesses as PWs 1 to 3 and his evidence was closed on 6.4.2009; whereas the present two applications are filed six months thereafter i.e. in the month of October, 2009. It is stated that the petitioner previously filed EA No. 426 and 427 of 2009 seeking similar relief of reopening the EA No. 444 of 2008 and to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features, which were dismissed on

14.9.2009 on merits. The petitioner filed EA No. 486, 487 and 488 of 2009 seeking to reopen EA No. 444 of 2008, to recall PW-1 to mark documents and to receive the documents and the same were allowed on 13.10.2009. Accordingly, PW-1 was recalled and Exs. P-2 to P-6 were marked. The present E.As. are filed only for the purpose of examining the Sub-Registrar, who has already issued Valuation Certificate, Ex.P-2. The court below held that the Valuation Certificate was marked without any objection. If that be so, examining the Sub-Registrar is not necessary and, therefore, I am of the opinion that once the Valuation Certificate was marked as an exhibit without objection, there cannot be any necessity to reopen the evidence and issue summons to the Sub-Registrar to speak about Valuation Certificate. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The court below may consider the EA No. 444 of 2008 on its own merits in accordance with law. No order as to cost. September 23, 2011 MAS ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah