This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the auction held on 28-01-2010 in pursuance of the order passed in I.A.No.481 of 2005 in O.S.No.55 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Siddipet.

O.S. No.55 of 2000 between the petitioner herein and the respondents herein was filed by the respondents 1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of the suit house bearing Door No.6-2-68 situated at Borra Hanuman Temple, Siddipet and a preliminary decree was passed by the trial Court on 11-12-2003 granting 2/3rd share to the plaintiffs and 1/3rd share to the revision petitioner and respondents 3 and 4 herein. A.S.No.6 of 2004 against the preliminary decree at the instance of the revision petitioner was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet on 22-10-2005 and Second Appeal No.1569 of 2005 was dismissed by the High Court on 23-06-2006. Thereafter, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court to effect partition of the property by metes and bounds and the Commissioner in his report dated 21-01-2009 stated that the width of the property is only 14 feet 4 inches and in view of its shape, it is difficult to effect partition of the property into nine (9) equal shares. Consequently, the plaintiffs applied for an order for sale of the property under Section 2 of the Partition Act, 1893 (for short "the Act") in I.A.No.481 of 2005.

The trial Court ordered in the said petition to sell the property in public auction and distribute the sale proceeds among the sharers as per the preliminary decree. Thereafter, on the direction of the trial Court, a public notice was given by publication in a Newspaper about the auction of property by the trial Court on 21-04-2009. In the meanwhile, the revision petitioner herein came up with I.A.No.324 of 2009 to stay the auction, but the trial Court dismissed the petition by an order dated 01-06-2009 as the procedure being adopted under the Act is permissible and as the subject property cannot be conveniently partitioned as per the preliminary decree.

Before that order was passed on the application subsequently, the revision petitioner filed a memo before the trial Court stating that he was ready for amicable settlement with the other parties, which may be considered in the interests of justice and equity and that he was ready to take his share on any side of the property and he clearly specified that he waived publication of auction in Newspaper.

Thereafter, on the directions of the trial Court, the Advocate Commissioner again visited the suit property and after making a local enquiry, he submitted his report expressing his view that the market value of the subject property on the average will be around Rs.5,000/- per square yard and the total value will be around Rs.13,00,000/-. Then a paper publication by way of general notice about the auction to be conducted on 28-01-2010 was again made on 03-01-2010.

On 28-01-2010, the impugned proceedings took place before the trial Court, during which the trial Court recorded that the upset price was fixed at Rs.13,00,000/- based on the Commissioner's report and the highest bidder was directed to pay 25% of the auction amount on that day and the remaining amount on the 15th day apart from bearing expenses of stamp and poundage. The auction was conducted accordingly by the trial Court after explaining all the terms and conditions to the bidders and the auction was stated to have been conducted after the paper publication was filed and in the presence of the learned counsel for both parties and the bidders. The trial Court also noted that in spite of the revision petitioner waiving the right of fresh publication, still a fresh publication was ordered in the interests of parties. The trial Court further recorded that the auction was conducted in open court in which eight persons participated and one Sri S. Kanakaiah was the highest bidder in whose favour the auction was knocked down at Rs.16,05,000/-. The trial Cou