IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Circular of the High Court and considered the provisions of Order 21 Rule 90 CPC and Order 21 Rule 58(1) in setting aside the sale and refunding the amount to the petitioner/auction purchaser.

JUDGMENT

1. In the present case an anomaly arose out of nonobservation of the Circular of the High Court for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh vide ROC No.1911/SO/2016 dtd. 21/7/2016 directing all the Judicial Officers working in the state of Andhra Pradesh to forward a copy of order directing or raising attachment of any property to the Registrar or Sub-Registrar concerned for the record purpose.

2. This revision petition is filed under Sec. 115 CPC against the order dtd. 19/9/2019 dismissing petition in E.A.No.3 of 2019 in E.P.No.27 of 2014 in O.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Addanki filed by the auction purchaser under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC to cancel the sale dtd. 4/4/2017 in E.P.No.27 of 2014 and for refund of the amount of Rs.30,04,000.00 with accrued interest to the petitioner.

3. The facts leading to filing of the petition and the case of the petitioner/auction purchaser are briefly as follows: The 1st respondent got a decree in O.S.No.11 of 2013 against the second respondent and filed E.P.No.27 of 2014 for realization of the decreed amount by sale of the property of the second respondent/JDr. EP schedule property: Prakasam District - Markapuram District Registration - Addanki SRO - Korisapadu Mandal - Pichikalagudipadu village - Survey No.374 - An extent of Ac.8.97 cents of dry land within the following boundaries: East: Kalikam China Raghava Reddy South: Ragam Yanadi West: Panthulu Subba Rao North: Karavadi Meeravali

4. Proclamation of sale to be held on 21/11/2016 was ordered on 14/10/2016 and EP was adjourned to 28/11/2016. On 21/11/2016, the sale was adjourned to 25/11/2016. Meanwhile, third respondent who is the daughter of the second respondent/JDr filed a claim application contending that she got 1/3rd share in the EP schedule property obtained as per the preliminary decree dtd. 17/6/2016 in O.S.No.320 of 2014 on the file of the VII Additional District Judge, Ongole. Thereafter, the sale was adjourned several times and finally on 4/4/2017, the auction for sale of the property was held in which the petitioner stood the highest bidder for Rs.30,04,000.00 and paid Rs.6,60,835.00 on that day and later paid the balance amount on 18/4/2017 and thus paid the total sale warrant amount of Rs.30,04,000.00 along with registration charges in Court. Later, the matter was posted for confirmation of sale. Still the claim petition was pending. But meanwhile, some decree holders filed petitions against the sale proceeds of EP schedule property for ratable distribution. Those petitions were also pending. The petitioner came to know that a decree holder in O.S.No.5 of 2013 by name Vemula Srinivasa Rao filed E.P.No.24 of 2014 in O.S.No.5 of 2013 on the file of Family Court, Ongole against the second respondent herein/JDr for recovery of decretal amount of Rs.14,20,981.00 and got sold items No.1 to 3 therein in the auction held on 1/3/2018 and out of these three items, item No.2 is an extent of Ac.5.88 cents covered in S.Nos.374, 375 of Pitchikalagudipadu village of Korisapadu Mandal and the properties were purchased by Mangalapudi Koti Reddy, S/o Venkata Reddy for an amount of Rs.38,00,000.00 for item No.2 and the sale was confirmed on 1/5/2018 by returning the claim petition of the claim petitioner herein. The said property is part and parcel of schedule property in the present EP No.27 of 2014. As the matter stood thus, another decree holder Navuluri Nageswara Rao filed E.P.No.33 of 2015 in O.S.No.76 of 2014 on the file of Family Court, Ongole in which item No.1 property to an extent of Ac.3.22 cents in Survey Nos.374, 375 of Pitchikalagudipadu village was sold to DHr Navuluri Nageswara Rao for Rs.26,00,000.00 and the sale was confirmed on 14/8/2018. The said property is part and parcel of the schedule property in E.P.No.27 of 2014. Therefore, the petitioner filed this petition to set aside sale in respect of the very same properties which were already sold in the other executio