ORDER :

M. Venkata Ramana, J.

1. This civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu in E.A. No. 417 of 2017 in E.P. No. 262 of 2011 in O.S. No. 105 of 2004, dated 02.07.2018.

2. The DHr in E.P. No. 262 of 2011 in O.S. No. 105 of 2004 is the petitioner herein as well as in E.A. No. 417 of 2017. The respondents are described as JDRs and who were also respondents in E.A. No. 417 of 2017.

3. E.A. No. 417 of 2017 was filed under Section 64 C.P.C., by the petitioner to reject E.A. No. 272 of 2017 in the above E.P.

4. E.A. No. 272 of 2017 was filed by the 1st respondent making a claim to the property requesting to set aside the sale of property in dispute held on 02.06.2017, in court-auction.

5. A decree was passed in a money claim in O.S. No. 105 of 2004 in favour of the 3rd respondent against the 2nd respondent on the file of the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu for recovery of money, on 29.09.2004. The above decree was transferred, according to the petitioner, in her favour under a registered deed of transfer on 17.11.2011. Thus, she claimed that there was an assignment of decree in her favour.

6. The petitioner filed E.P. No. 262 of 2011 in execution of the above decree as an assignee, and sale was ordered therein. The sale was conducted in the above Court on 02.06.2017 wherein the petitioner became highest bidder, since the auction was knocked down in her favour. The above E.P. stood posted for confirmation of sale.

7. It is pertinent to refer that the 3rd respondent, as plaintiff in the suit, sought attachment of the property in dispute, before judgment, under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 C.P.C., during pendency of the suit in I.A. No. 319 of 2004 and the above property was attached on 19.06.2004.

8. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 142 of 2004 on the file of the Court of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu, against the 2nd respondent basing on an unregistered agreement for sale dated 02.11.2001 for specific performance of contract and the suit was decreed in her favour and against the 2nd respondent. In execution of the decree therein the 1st respondent laid E.P. No. 8 of 2005 and pursuant thereto the Court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapuramu executed a registered sale deed in respect of the property in dispute on 05.10.2005.

9. The 1st respondent is claiming that she has' been in effective possession and enjoyment of the property in dispute upon obtaining possession of the same as per the orders in E.A. No. 902 of 2005 and since she was delivered possession through the process of the Court on 28.08.2006. According to the 1st respondent, the purchase of property by her under agreement for sale on 02.11.2001, was for valuable consideration of Rs. 4,00,000/- and the above sale agreement was executed not only by the 2nd respondent. but also by her husband.

10. E.A. No. 47 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner raising objections, relating to delivery of possession of the property in dispute when sought by the 1st respondent in E.A. No. 902 of 2005 and the Court below had rejected such objections. According to the 1st respondent, suppressing the above fact, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 262 of 2011 in collusion with the 3rd respondent.

11. O.S. No. 134 of 2006 was filed by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent and a decree was passed therein, in execution of which, the petitioner laid E.P. No. 75 of 2007 in the Court below, seeking sale of the property in dispute. Then, according to the 1st respondent, she laid E.A. No. 506 of 2007 questioning the sale and thereupon, the petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 5519 of 2008 on the file of this Court questioning maintainability of the claim made by the 1st respondent. However, the above C.R.P. was dismissed on 07.09.2009 confirming the order of the Executing Court, which held that question of maintainability of objection of the 1st respondent need not be decided as a preliminar