Back
2024 Supreme(AP) 236
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Ninala Jayasurya, J.
Tirumuru @ Tirumudi Jithendra Reddy - Appellant
Versus
Devaram Rajeswaramma & Ors. - Respondents
C.R.P. Nos. 959 of 2020, 2618 & 2621 of 2023
Decided On : 08-05-2024
Smt. S.A.V. Ratnam for Smt. M. Suguna, Counsel for the Petitioners; Ms.P.Vandana forMr.Sanepalli Ramlakshmana Reddy, Counsel for the Respondents
The main legal point established in the judgment is that orders made in violation of interim stay orders are null and void, and an appeal lies against an order passed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC.
Headnote:
Order - Revision Petitions - Code of Civil Procedure - O.S.No.175 of 2016 - I.A.No.201 of 2018 - E.A.No.235 of 2023 - E.A.No.316 of 2019 - E.A.No.___of 2023 - E.A.No.235 of 2023 - C.R.P.No.959 of 2020 - C.R.P.No.2621 of 2023 - C.R.P.No.2618 of 2023
Fact of the Case:
The case involved multiple Revision Petitions arising from orders passed by the Executing Court with reference to a Decree in O.S.No.175 of 2016. The petitioner, a Judgment Debtor, filed various applications seeking to set aside the auction sale, deposit the decretal amount, and extend the time for depositing the balance amount.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the orders passed by the Executing Court were null and void as they were made in violation of the interim stay orders issued by the High Court. The Court also held that the Civil Revision Petition No.959 of 2020 was not maintainable, and the other CRPs were set aside without going into the merits of the matter.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the orders passed by the Executing Court, the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petitions, and the compliance with interim stay orders.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on legal precedents to establish that an appeal lies against an order passed under Order 21 Rule 90 of CPC, and that the orders of the Executing Court were null and void due to the violation of interim stay orders.
Final Decision: The Court disposed of the Civil Revision Petitions, set aside the orders of the Executing Court, and directed the petitioner to pursue remedies before the appropriate courts.
ORDER
Ninala Jayasurya, J. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. These three Revision Petitions arise out of the Orders passed by the Executing Court with reference to the Decree dated 26.07.2016 in O.S.No.175 of 2016 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nellore. The said suit was filed by one Smt.Devaram Rajeswaramma against the petitioner herein, the sole defendant. The 2nd respondent herein is the auction purchaser.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the Original Suit and the details of these Revision Petitions and the chronological events that led to passing of the orders under challenge may be set out hereunder.
4. C.R.P.No.959 of 2020 - filed by the petitioner / Judgment Debtor against the Order of dismissal dated 29.05.2020 in I.A.No.201 of 2018 filed under Order 21 Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the auction conducted on 22.10.2018 on the ground of procedural irregularities.
5. C.R.P.No.2621 of 2023 - filed by the petitioner / Judgment Debtor against the Order in unnumbered E.A., filed under Order 21 Rule 89 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the auction sale on deposit of the decretal amount.
6. C.R.P.No.2618 of 2023 - filed by the petitioner / Judgment Debtor against the Order dated 19.09.2023 in E.A.No.235 of 2023 filed by the auction purchaser under Order 21 Rule 92 for confirmation of the Sale Dated 22.10.2018.
7. Apart from the above Civil Revision Petitions, the petitioner/ Judgment Debtor filed C.R.P.No.228 of 2019 against the Order of dismissal dated 04.02.2019 in I.A.No.908 of 2017 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte Decree dated 26.07.2016.
8. O.S.No.175 of 2016 was filed by the 1st respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.10,50,000/- on the foot of the Promissory notes stated to have been executed by the defendant / the petitioner herein. The said suit was decreed on 26.07.2016 for a sum of Rs.12,32,938/- as the defendant remained ex parte. On coming to know about the ex parte decree, the defendant filed an application to set aside the same along with an application I.A.No.908 of 2017 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree. Seeking execution of the decree, the decree holder filed E.P.No.261 of 2016 and the same was allowed and an auction was conducted on 22.10.2018, wherein the mother of the decree holder / respondent No.2 herein purchased the suit schedule property in the public auction. The Judgment Debtor filed E.A.No.201 of 2018 under Order 21 Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the said Sale dated 22.10.2018. On 12.12.2018, I.A.No.908 of 2017 filed by the petitioner / Judgment Debtor seeking to condone the delay in filing the set aside petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner / Judgment Debtor filed C.R.P.No.228 of 2019 and by an Order dated 01.03.2019 interim stay of operation of the Decree dated 26.07.2016 was granted, on condition of depositing half of the suit amount to the credit of the Principal Senior Civil Judge's Court, Nellore within three months from the date of Order, with a default clause.
9. Pursuant to the above said interim order, the petitioner deposited Rs.5,25,000/- i.e., half of the promissory note amount instead of half of the suit amount. The Decree holder raised an objection that the order of High Court was not complied with in toto and in those circumstances, the petitioner filed E.A.No.316 of 2019 before the Executing Court seeking permission to deposit the balance amount. The said I.A., was dismissed by an order dated 28.01.2020 inter alia that the petition is not maintainable as the Executing Court cannot modify the order of the High Court. Then, the petitioner filed I.A.No.1 of 2020 in C.R.P.No.228 of 2019 seeking extension of time for depos
