The High Court · 2025

s/o Guruvaiah Ase 82 vears, occ Asricutture R/o xsl]# Iil:?,',"GtHirlu Kolluri Gurunadha Rao, S/o x1ss li [[r #fi ii* .!!,,nre ;H?,f,FH tH Si J ] B ti ?a^ ; :ot,ii, ...RESPONDENTS l.A. NO: 1 OF ?.0171CRPMP. NO: 6252 OF 2017\ Petitrcn rnder Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant interim injunction restraining the 5th respondent from changing the physical feature of the subject lar"rd rn any manner and alienation in favour of any 3rd party in respect of th= schedul-- property i.e., Plot bearing No. 13 & 14 measuring 740 '1 5 sq.yards cut of Sy N0 289/A of Khanapuram Haveli. situated near Bank Colony, on By-pass road. Knamman'. pending disposal of the main CRP Cou nse I for the Petitioner: SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJI Counse I for the Responclent No.1 to 3: NONE APPEARED Counsel for the Respondent No.4: SRI KRISHNA KOSHORE KOVVURI Cou nsel for the Respondent No.5: SRI K.MOHAN Cou n sel for the Respondent No.6: SRI P.RAMA SHARANA SHARMA The Court made the following: ORDER I I i I I I I I THE HON,BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA CIVIL REVISIO N PETI TION No.4797 oF 2017 ORDER: Thiscivilrevisionpc|itionisfiledbythcallctlon purchaser against the orcler datecl ll OT 2Ol7 passed in Fl.P.No.77 of 2O03 in O S No lT4 ol 2OOl bY thc Senior Civil .Ilrdge , Khammam '2. Pcnding disllosal of the petition' one K Venkatesu'arlu h:rd lrled E.A. No. 44512OO3 uncler Order 21 Rule 58 of Codc of Citil Proccdure (for short 'CPCJ' but the said petition was not prcsscd and u'as erccordingly dismissed' Thereafter' the Auctior-r Purchascr sought restoration of E'A No 445l2OO3 and E'A No' 4+al'2OO3, but the trial Court' by order dated 17 'O4 2Ol7 refused such rcquest and dismissed the same The counsel f<rr ' thedccreelrolder,judgmentdebtor,andClaimpetitionerall prayed lor dismissal ot the said petition' while only the counsel lor the Auction Purchaser insisted on its continuation On pcn-rsal of the record, it appeared that the Auction Purchaser' K.Venkata Reddy, had participated in the auction held on 22.og .2oO3 and \L'as dcciared the highest bidder for Rs.9,65,00O/-. He had cleposited one-fourth of the sale price on 2 the dat. of au('t.()rI bur l-ailcd lo pay the lemaining three-fourths rrithin lrficcr-i rlrr s, thcre b1' violatcd Order 2 1 Rulc 85 of CPC' \s tlre cicc rt ,. ltolrit'r, .ltLdgrnerlt delrtor, and claim pctrlioner \\('rr: r1o1 ill ('rlsr( (1 irt t:oittit-luing tllc llroccedings' and sinct: thc ,,\trction Pr:r-chast'r hrrrl ComlTrittccl del:rult itl pzivntent. he could not insist ttit i-otr tit.tuitLiotl o[ this petitiolr Althtlugh the Auction I)urr:hasct coltlt'ttcLt'(1 tilart ht: hacl plcfcrred civil rcvision lreLiIions irgainst 1]rt orrlt'rs ol lhis Cr.'lirt clatecl 17 04 2017, no stav had be('rt qrilIlle.l b] thls Court, thc p(ltitiorl rvas dtsmissed'

3. lteartl Sri Srrlvir.ji lla.jir Sh<:kar Rao, lcarnecl cour-rsel for the petitioner, Sri K Moharl, Iearned coutrsel lor rcspondent No 5 ancl Sri l) Iilrnrlt Sll:tI atr:r Sh:rrma, 1e:rrnccl counsel for rt'spon<l cn t No. ir.

4. 'l'he corlI('lltioll ()i- iearned cclt-ttlsel ior the petitioner is that th(' tria[ (]ourt oughl 1o hztve sccn that pclition('r deposited an anrount ot Rs.2,4 1.25()i- to\{'ards 1/4tir o[ the bid amount and an amoultt ol Iis.2().03O/ tos'ards poundagc totalir-rg to Rs.2,70,2tt0l' on tht' clatc o[ auction itsell i e, on 22 09'2OO3' Further the balan,:<' r,Llnount was deposilecl on 13 1O'2003 in'ith the permission of (lortrl. As such, therc is no delhult committed ,i*?EEir.rFGJlr iFn ,/ ._/ ,/ -a---r I I I I by the auction purchaser and the trial Court failed to consider the cx parte dccrce passed o1r 11 07'2002 and property was attached on 19 '03 2003 rvhere:rs thc claim pctitioner trled claim petition claiming that he purch:rsed property on 3O'06'2003 ie-' subsequcnt to attachmenl u'hit:h is nor valid in law The trial Court oug,ht to have seen that dismissal without adjudicating the rights of auction purchaser and ivithout setting aside the wl-ren the Petitioner frled sale is not Permissible in lau' and trial Court observcd ttrat peUtton tu rcstorc t hc Il P t hc petitione r l'rercin parid Rs 7,23,7I;0/- towards balancc amount n,hich was not considcred b1'the Lrial Court' deposited 1/41h amounL amount on 13.10 2003 which Learned counsel furthcr submitted that the petittoner 5. herein filed petition uuder Section 151 of CPC to restore the E P obscrving that auction Purchaser The same was allort'ed 22.09 .2OO3 and the remarnrng was not considered bY the trial are claim Petitioner and his son Court. TIle resPondents u'htr alleged to have received lhe property under gift deed, has locus standi to cl:rirr propertY as the claim petitioner purchased rhe propert5z whe n there is an attachment order against the said property. Therefore, requcsted the Court to allow this revision petition by setting aside the impugned order. 4 (r. L)n the otller hiurd the implead petjtioner respondent No.6 vc hcmcn[l\' opposc(i the pclition st.lting that the date of ilr-lcrrorl i.e., 22.r.)9.20(),1, :rnd the auction purchaser has to pay thc amounL on 0(1,. [O 2OOl] u frereas, hi' paid the amoLrnt on

13.10.2003 rvhich is rtol in t'rtnr;lIiaIlt'e ol R.58 of ()rder 21 of CPC ancl this pt titioncl has no locus standi to pray the Court for rerstor:ltion of Fl.P. its tht: decrec holder himsell has q'rthdrarr-n r-he Fl.P. ltncl clllirn j)ill.iti()ne I also u'ith<lrtlu n his petition. Hc furtl-rer contendcd that \\'hen thc dct:rccLal anlount u irs alrczLdv paicl to tlrt' tlccrec holdcl there is t'lo tlucslion of conrinuiltion ol E.P. Ir ts irlso submittccl thitL thorrgl'r thc amount deposited ttv ituction prtrchtrscr is considcred' lllc stamp dut)' was nol pirid as sr-tch, rcquestecl the Court to disr-niss this revision Pctition

7. Considtrring thr: submissions mitde b1' the rcspectrve counselarrdthcrrtaleriitlplaccclorrrer:ord,thercisnodispute with regzrrcl to l1ling o1 E P No 77 ol 200'l in (J S'No' I7,1. ol 2OOl for execution of dec re c passccl tl1' lhc t ri:rl Court Aclmittedly the clalm petitioner [rled pclition claiming that he pr-rrchascd the suit scheduie prop(lrt\r on 30 06 2OO3 sul;sequenl to the clecree ancl mcan$hile thr' !r'tal Crlurt issued si'le notic" atrd auction purchase r purctra:;cd t llc salne in auctiotr and he paid the 5 amount as prescribed by the Rules Meanwhi le the Decree holcler ancl the ctaim petitioner filcd memo on 10 03 20 i I stating that the decree holder reccived an amount ol Rs.4,5O,0OO/ tou/ards part satisfactlon of decrectal amount and not pressed the execution petition Bzrsing on the memo the trial court crroneouslr disnrisscd thc ti.P. When already there is a sale notice and auctlon purcl-rascr has purchased the property, dismissal of tr.P., basing on Lhc memo itself is erroneous. Further, the obsen'ations in the said E P, are that the petitioner hcrcin has not paid rcmaining itmount and not complied Rule 58 u'hcreas admittcdly, he paid total amount on I I

13.10.2003 but it has to bc paid on 06.10 2o03 for which the explanation of learned coutlsel fcrr ihc petitioner is that due to Dussera holidays, rhe Courl u'as closed and on the very re- opening day i.e., or-r l3- 10.2OO3 he deposited the amount lt ( r,r,as already obsen'ed by the same Court in earlier petition hled for restoration of E.P., u'hich is not considcred by the trial Court. As such, thc matter has to be remanded to the trial Court to dispose of the same ou merits by giving opportunity to all the parties.

8. Accordingly, the Civit Revision Petitron is allowed setting aside the order dated 11 .O7 .2017 passed in E.P.No.77 of 20O3 (' in ().S.h'o.174 of 2001 br lhc Senior Civil ,ludgc, Khammam and the m:rt1cr is rt::nilncle d back trl thc rrial Court for hearing on rncrits b.,' gLving rpportunrtv ro ttll t hc Partie s atld disposc ol thc san1c, as expedit:r;uslv as llossttllc Nri crlsts' Mrscellaneous petitions, perldirrg, il an1', shalI stand ckrsed. //TRUE COPY// To, ,.8??.I39&i'#1'_' G SECTION OFFICER t. The Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, Khammam District. 2 One CC ro SRl. RAJA SHEKAR RAO SALVAJT Advocate tOpUCl 3 One CC to SRI KRTSHNA KTSHORE KOWURIAd 4 one cc to sRr K r\4oHAN 5 .ne cc to sRr , -^ri:#ffii::ffi,^ 6. Two cD copies \J' r/-lr\rvrA Aovocate IoPUC] ^^,,^:";^-,:::,vuxrAovocate foPuc] ^r" TPK/PSL HIGH COURT DATED:18t0812025 1H ES i3 0BnAI 202t :., -t s * ORDER CRP.No.4797 of 2017 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS ALLOWED L \\