( 1 ) THIS Court ordered notice before admission on 11-11-2005. Sri A. Ravinder, the learned counsel who had lodged caveat on behalf of the Court auction purchaser-R. 2, had taken notice. On behalf of R. 1-decree holder, Sri K. V. Subramanya Narsu, the learned counsel had entered appearance. While ordering notice before admission on 11-11-2005 this Court also made the following order. Both the learned counsel have brought to my notice that E. P. No. 239 of 1998 has been posted for delivering of open plot on 14-11-2005. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, smt. M. Bhaskara Laxmi, the petitioner is very much residing in the building built in the open plot. In these circumstances, the Court below is directed to proceed further with the delivery proceedings and the delivery of the open plot shall be handed over to the auction purchaser without disturbing the possession of the petitioner herein in the construction made in the said plot". At the request of the counsel on record, the matter is being adjourned from time to time and ultimately, the C. R. P itself is finally heard.

( 2 ) THE C. R. P. is preferred by the revision petitioner judgment debtor No. 2 under article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the order made by the 1 Additional senior Civil Judge, Warangal dt. 4-10-2005 in E. A. No. 66 of 2004 in E. P. No. 239 of 1998. The said application was moved by the revision petitioner under Section 151 of the cpc requesting the Court to set aside the sale. The learned Judge after recording certain reasons and further principally taking into consideration the order already made in e. A. No. 62 of 2003 came to the conclusion that there are no bona fides In the objection raised by the revision petitioner and ultimately dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present C. R. P. is preferred. Contentions of Smt. Bhaskara Laxml:

( 3 ) SMT. Bhaskara Laxmi, the learned counsel representing the revision petitioner judgment debtor No. 2 had raised two important grounds: (1) Inasmuch as at no point of time there was actual service of notice on the revision petitioner-judgment debtor No. 2, for want of service of notice the sale said to have been held being illegal to be declared as nullity in view of Section 47 of the cpc and; (2) even otherwise, it is not in serious dispute that the construction came up and the construction is in existence and the same was not shown in the sale proclamation and hence, the same amounts to excessive execution which would cause not of prejudice to the revision petitioner. Incidentally the learned counsel had also touched serveral other aspects in relation thereto. The learned counsel initially would maintain that this application no doubt, was filed under Section 151 of the CPC and in fact under inherent powers, the things can be set right but even otherwise, the mere quoting of wrong provision of law is of no consequence and hence the same can be treated as one under Section 47 of the C. P. C and can be dealt with. The learned counsel also commented that the learned Judge was principally guided away by an order made in e. A. No. 62 of 2003, an application filed for recall of delivery warrant. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the nature of the order which was made in the said application and would maintain that the question of want of service of notice and in consequence thereof the sale being nullity, this aspect was not agitated and hence, the said order would not come in the way of this revisional Court in considering the said question in elaboration. The learned counsel also would contend that the revision petitioner-judgment debtor No. 2 would occasionally visit the village and the mere fixture of notice to such a place would not amount to service of notice and when the court is satisfied that for want of service of notice prejudice is caused to the party automatically the subsequent proceedings inclusive of the sale held to be declared as nullity

Click Here to Read the rest of this document