SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(AP) 1333

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.
Ganta Subbayamma and Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Vetsa Satyanarayana and Ors. – Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 563 of 2014 and I.A. No. 1 of 2014 (CMAMP No. 801 of 2014)
Decided On : 02-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G. Krishna Murthy
For the Respondent: Vijaya Aditya representing on behalf of C. Prakash Reddy

The limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC is 60 days from the date of sale, and the stay period does not save the limitation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXI Rule 89 and Rule 92(2) - Limitation for filing application to set aside sale - The court clarified that the period of limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 is 60 days from the date of sale, not 30 days as previously held in P.K. Unni v. Nirmala Industries. The execution sale was conducted on 16.12.2004, and the application to set aside the sale was filed on 30.04.2013, which was within the limitation period when excluding the time of stay. (Paras 16, 20, 22, 36)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 15 - Exclusion of time - The court ruled that the period of stay against confirmation of sale does not save the limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89. (Paras 26, 34)

(C) Full Satisfaction Memo - The court held that a Full Satisfaction Memo can be treated as compliance under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC. (Paras 38, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed against the dismissal of a petition to set aside an auction sale conducted in execution of a decree. The appellants contended that the application was filed within the limitation period, considering the stay order against confirmation of sale.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the application was indeed filed within the correct limitation period and clarified the applicable rules regarding the limitation for such applications.

Issues: The main issues were the correct period of limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 and whether the stay period could be excluded.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the limitation for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 89 is 60 days from the date of sale, and the stay period does not save the limitation.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 r/w Section 104 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(for short' the C.P.C), challenging the validity and correctness of the impugned order dated 24.04.2014 in E.A. No. 150 of 2013 in E.P. No. 15 of 2003 in OS No. 29 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, wherein, the petition filed by the Judgment Debtors(For short 'J.Dr') under Order XXI Rule-89 r/w Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.

2. The Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 were the J.Dr. Nos. 1 to 3, the Respondent Nos. 1 to 8 were the Decree Holders (D. Hrs.)/Plaintiffs/Respondents and the Respondent No. 9 was the auction purchaser/Respondent before the Executing Court. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein will be referred to as J.Drs, D.Hrs., and auction purchaser.

3. The case of the Appellants/J.Drs., in a nutshell, is as follows:

    a. The Respondent No. 1-deceased Decree Holder filed a suit in O.S. No. 29 of 1997 on the file of the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur against the Appellant No. 1/ deceased J. Dr. No. 1., for recovery of money based on the promissory note and obtained a decree on 05.08.2002. The deceased Respondent No. 1 filed E.P. No. 15/2003 for realisation of decretal amount by bringing the scheduled properties for sale restricting their claim against Item No. 1 of the E.P. Schedule Property.

    b. The Appellant No. 3, who is the daughter of the original J.Dr./Ganta Rama Mohan Rao, filed O.S. No. 97/2004 on the file of the Court of II Additional District Judge, Family Court, West Godavari District, Eluru, seeking partition of the scheduled properties and also for a declaration that the decree obtained by the deceased and the Respondent No. 1 herein are not binding on her.

    c. During the pendency of this CMA, the Appellants filed IA No. 1 of 2022 to receive the additional documents, which are certain certified copies. Other side did not raise any objection to the same. Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

    d. During the pendency of the present CMA, the Respondent No. 1, who is the original D.Hr., died and as such the Respondent Nos. 2 to 8 are brought on record as the legal representatives. The Respondent No. 9 herein is the auction purchaser, who purchased the property in the sale held on 16.12.2004, while so, the Appellant No. 3/J.Dr. No. 3 filed I.A. No. 1831 of 2004 in O.S. No. 97 of 2004 on the file of the court of II Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru and obtained an order of injunction in respect of the confirmation of sale regarding her 4/9th share. Therefore, O.S. No. 97 of 2004 was transferred to the Court of Additional District Court, Kovvur and renumbered as OS No. 10/2012 and stay order was continued.

    e. While so, the executing court conducted sale subject to the result of the claim of the J.Dr. No. 3 in OS No. 97/2004. Thereafter, the J.Dr. No. 2 herein filed a petition in the partition suit claiming her share out of the share of her deceased son. She also obtained an order of injunction for confirmation of sale in the execution petition. It is further stated that at the intervention of elders, the matter was settled between the D.Hr. and the J.Drs. and thereby, the D.Hrs. filed IA No. 614 of 2013 in OS No. 10 of 2012 to vacate the order passed in IA No. 1831 of 2004 for enabling them to proceed with the EP and the stay petition was allowed and thereby, injunction which was granted against the confirmation of sale in EP No. 18/2003 was vacated on 25.04.2013.

    f. The Appellant/J.Dr. herein filed EA No. 150 of 2013 on 30.04.2013 to set aside the sale along with full satisfaction memo and by depositing the Poundage amount plus 5% of the purchase money. The auction purchaser filed counter contesting the matter on the ground that the amount deposited by the J.Dr. along with the petition filed under Order-XXI Rule-89 CPC is beyond the period of limitation i.e., 30 days, apart from taking other object

                Click Here to Read the rest of this document
                1
                2
                3
                4
                5
                6
                7
                8
                9
                10
                11
                SupremeToday Portrait Ad
                supreme today icon
                logo-black

                An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

                Please visit our Training & Support
                Center or Contact Us for assistance

                qr

                Scan Me!

                India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

                For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

                whatsapp-icon Back to top