L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE judgment-debtor in O. S. No. 19 of 1982, on the file of the senior Civil Judge, Kovur, filed this C. M. A. , aggrieved by the rejection of an application filed under Rule 90 of Order 21 C. P. C.

( 2 ) O. S. No. 19 of 1982 was filed by the 1st respondent, Sri Kodandaramaswamy temple, Buchireddypalem, against the appellant, in the Court of Subordinate Judge, kavali, Nellore District. Initially, it was represented by the hereditary Dharmakartha, by name, Dodla Padnuranga Reddy. The suit was decreed and the decree became final. In the meanwhile, the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kovur, was formed and the subject-matter of the decree came within the jurisdiction of that Court. Therefore, the E. P. No. 13 of 1995 was filed in that Court. In the course of execution, an item of immovable property belonging to the appellant was brought to sale. He filed E. A. No. 215 of 1999, to set aside the sale. Through its order dated 21-12-2000, the Executing Court rejected the E. A.

( 3 ) SRI N. Chandradhar Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are material irregularities in the execution proceedings, including the one arising out of change of law, in relation to administration and management of temples. He submits that the proceedings initiated by hereditary trustee cannot be maintained, in view of the a. P. Charitable and Religious Institutions act (Act 16/87) (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). He further submits that the appellant was not given adequate opportunity to contest the matter, or to deposit the decretal amount.

( 4 ) SRI M. V. S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the appellant has been obstructing the execution proceedings, on one pretext or the other, ever since 1995, and that all the applications filed by him, from time to time, were rejected. He submits that the present application is not maintainable, since applications filed for on the same grounds were rejected by the executing Court and affirmed by this court. He also contends that the relief to be granted under Rule 90 of Order 21 c. P. C. , is not absolute, and if it emerges that the objector has pleaded or was entitled to plead a ground before the sale takes place, it shall not open to him to challenge the sale on that ground at a later stage.

( 5 ) THIS appeal arises out of an application filed by the appellant, at the stage of execution. As observed earlier, the suit filed by the 1st respondent against the appellant was decreed way back in the year 1985. On filing of the E. P. , the executing Court served notice on the appellant. However, he remained absent on the date of hearing i. e. , on 15-6-1995 and was set ex parte. Further steps to bring the property to sale were taken. The sale notice was served upon that appellant on 7-11-1995, intimating the next date of hearing as 23-1-1996. This time also he did not turn up. The E. P. was posted on 15-4-1996, for settlement of terms, for proclamation of sale. It was at this stage, that the appellant filed E. A. No. 111 of 1996, under Section 47 C. P. C. , alleging that the E. P. , is not maintainable, on the ground that the hereditary Dharmakartha cannot represent the temple, in view of change of law, under the Act. He also filed E. A. No. 112 of 1996, for adjournment of the sale, scheduled to be held on 15-4-1996. The sale could not be proceeded with on 15-4-1996, for want of bidders. Hence, e. A. No. l 12 of 1996 became infructuous. E. A. No. l 11 of 1996 was dismissed on merits, on 26-6-1997, on the ground that the appellant cannot file it, once he was set ex parte in the E. P.

( 6 ) HAVING realized that unless the order setting him ex parte in the E. P. is set-aside, he cannot file applications, raising objections, the appellant filed an application, under Rule 106 of Order 21 c. P. C. , for that purpose. Since there was delay in submission of the application, he filed E. A. No. 258 of 1997, under Section 5 of the Limi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document