IMPORTANT POINT
Judgment debtor only trying to avoid transfer of property to auction purchaser is not entitled to any relief.

Judgment :-

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel.

2. Leave granted.

3. In this appeal, the appellant – an auction purchaser, has challenged the validity of the judgment dated 13th December, 2013, delivered in Civil Revision Petition No.6528 of 2012 by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad.

4. The appellant is an auction purchaser, whereas respondent no.1 is a principal debtor and respondent no.2 is a creditor in this case.

5. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under:

Respondent no.2 had filed OS No.45 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali against respondent no.1 for recovery of Rs.1,78,000/-. An ex-parte decree was passed on 29th December, 2006 and the decretal amount was Rs.3,55,732/-. It appears from the record that no successful effort was made by respondent no.1 to challenge the said ex-parte decree.

6. Thereafter, the execution proceedings had been initiated by respondent no.2 for sale of immovable property – agricultural land belonging to the principal debtor – respondent no.1 herein and the sale was conducted on 30th May, 2011. The property had been sold for Rs.13,05,000/- in an auction and the said amount had been paid by the appellant, who is the auction purchaser.

7. Subsequently, respondent no.1 had filed Civil Revision Petition No.2610 of 2011 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh pointing out certain irregularities in the execution proceedings. The said civil revision petition had been disposed of on 22nd July, 2011 as it was open to him to file an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the CPC. In pursuance of the aforestated order passed by the High Court, E.A. No.426 of 2011 had been filed by respondent no.1. However, the same had been dismissed for default on 22nd February, 2012. An effort to get the said application restored to file had also been failed.

8. Finally, the Executing Court had also permitted the auction purchaser to take possession of the property in question vide its order dated 7th November, 2012.

9. In the aforestated circumstances, respondent no.1 had filed Civil Revision Petition No.6528 of 2012 challenging the order dated 7th November, 2012 passed by the executing Court before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

10. After hearing the concerned counsel, the High Court by the impugned judgment dated 13th December, 2013, allowed the petition and set aside the sale and directed the Executing Court to take appropriate action for sale of the property in question in accordance with the provisions of Rules 64 and 66 of Order XXI of the CPC. It was also directed that respondent no.1 i.e. the petitioner before the High Court should deposit the amount which had been paid to the decree holder i.e. the present respondent no.2. The amount deposited by the auction purchaser was directed to be refunded to him by the executing Court and it was also directed that respondent no.1 –the judgment debtor should be put into possession of the property in question.

11. We would also like to record some of the proceedings of this Court in this judgment. At the time when the appeal was notified for hearing on 14th July, 2014, this Court had directed respondent no.1 – the judgment debtor, to pay Rs.15,50,000/- to the present appellant because the appellant had paid Rs.13,05,000/- when the property in question had been purchased by him on 30th May, 2011. The amount so paid by the appellant had been tied up since long and so as to return his amount with some additional amount by way of compensation, we had directed respondent no.1 to pay Rs.15,50,000/-, but respondent no.1 failed to do so upto 4th August, 2014, the date on which the hearing was adjourned.

12. Once again, on 4th August, 2014, we granted further time to respondent no.1 to make payment of the aforesaid amount to the appellant before 15th September, 2014. However, in spite of this additional time granted to respondent no.1, he did not pay the amount to the appellant and on 15th Septem