BANGARU KRISHNARJUNA AND 3 OTHERS Vs. DASARI ATCHUTAMBA AND ANOTHER
LAWS(APH)-2016-9-51
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on September 29,2016

Bangaru Krishnarjuna And 3 Others Appellant
VERSUS
Dasari Atchutamba And Another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

B. Siva Sankara Rao, J. - (1.) The revision petitioners are third parties to the suit O.S. No. 176 of 2002 filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money. The suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff on 25.02.2009. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed E.P. No. 109 of 2009 for sale of the petition schedule property for realisation of the decree amount and the property was sold on 23.04.2013 in the public auction. Questioning the public auction dated 23.04.2013, the petitioners/third parties to the suit but for claiming as vendees from judgment debtor (for short JDr.) filed E.A. SR. No. 1688 of 2014 in E.A. No. 95 of 2014 under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC to set aside the auction on the grounds of irregularity in conducting the sale for the entire property, instead of sufficient portion therein and said petition since rejected holding not maintainable, the present revision is filed impugning the same.
(2.) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the lower Court gravely erred in rejecting the petition and failed to consider the principles of law that while conducting auction sale in execution of a decree, the Court is under a duty to follow the mandatory requirements contained under Order XXI Rules 64 and 66 CPC. It is also the contention that the executing Court cannot sell more than such extent of property which is enough to satisfy the decree. The lower Court also went wrong in rejecting the petition on the ground that the earlier petition filed by the petitioners under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC was dismissed for default and the expression in Malempati Harinarayana v. Vankayalapati Subba Rao, 2013 (2) ALT 520 not considered and sought for setting aside the order of the lower Court and to allow the revision petition as prayed for.
(3.) Whereas it is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision respondents that order of the lower Court holds good and for this Court while sitting against the revision there is nothing to interfere and sought for dismissal of the revision.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.