The court upheld the validity of the execution sale, ruling that the appellant failed to prove material irregularities or substantial injury, affirming the finality of the trial court's decree.

JUDGMENT :

(V. GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal, is filed by the appellant challenging the order and decreetal order, dated 29.12.2015 in E.A.No.88 of 2015 in E.P.No.7 of 2002 in O.S.No.143 of 1997 passed by the Principal District Judge, Nellore [for short 'the Executing Court'].

2. The appellant herein is the Judgment Debtor and respondents 1 and 2 herein are the Decree Holders and 3^rd respondent herein is the Auction Purchaser in E.A.No.88 of 2015 in E.P.No.7 of 2002 in O.S.No.143 of 1997.

3. The appellant/Judgment Debtor filed E.A.No.88 of 2015 in E.P.No.7 of 2002 in O.S.No.143 of 1997 under Order XXI Rule 90 and under Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”) for setting aside the sale held on 10.10.2006 and for costs.

4. The brief averments in E.A.No.88 of 2015 in E.P.No.7 of 2002 in O.S.No.143 of 1997, are as under:

Proclamation was not properly effected. No beat of tom-tom was made in the vicinity, and the receipt was obtained without actually proclaiming by beat of tom-tom. The market value of the schedule property prevailing as on the date of sale was Rs.25,00,000/-, but the 3^rd respondent/ auction-purchaser in collusion with the respondents/decree holders and other bidders and with ulterior motive of having the property did not allow the bid to go for a reasonable price. As the petitioner was away from the State, he could not know the date of sale and thus he was unable to secure highest bidders. The publication, which was made in Janata Newspaper of Vijayawada, has no circulation in Nellore town where the property is situated. Due to these irregularities in conducting the proclamation of sale and sale, it is liable to be set aside.

5. The 1^st respondent/1^st decree-holder filed counter denying all the averments mentioned in the petition which was adopted by 2^nd respondent/2^nd decree-holder and further contended as under: -

The Judgment-Debtor has filed the petition with the sole object of delaying and prolonging the matter in order to prevent the decree-holders to realize the decreetal amount, and the petition is devoid of merits, and it is liable to be dismissed.

6. The 3^rd respondent/auction-purchaser filed counter denying all the averments mentioned in the petition and further contended as under: -

(i) The Judgment-debtor slept over the matter from the period of issuance of sale notice under Order XXI Rule 66 of the CPC till completion of sale process and, therefore, he is not entitled to the reliefs sought for in the present application. This petition is filed with a malafide intention to prevent the auction-purchaser to take delivery of possession of the property. The petitioner has been abusing the process of the Court. The petitioner through his Legal Representatives, unsuccessfully filed C.F.R.No.11253 of 2006 under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC claiming rights in the property, which was rejected on 30.10.2006 by the Executing Court as not maintainable. He also filed E.A.No.3 of 2008 for transfer of Execution Proceedings to some other Court, making allegations against the Presiding Officer, and the same was dismissed on 23.01.2008. The petitioner sought for adjournments by sending telegrams, and by absenting himself for some adjournments, and by filing some petition or the other, and could successfully dragon the proceedings from 2002 to 2006. The petitioner also filed E.A.No.40 of 2007 under Order XXI Rules 97, 98 and 101 of CPC contending that he is an agriculturist and the decree is not executable, etc., and it was dismissed on merits. Against the said order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred A.S.No.29 of 2008 before this Court and obtained ad-interim stay in A.S.M.P.No.71 of 2008, but subsequently it was vacated on filing of counter-affidavit by the auction-purchaser in A.S.M.P. No.572 of 2008, dated 24.07.2008. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner/ judgment-debtor preferred SLPs. (C) 29285 and 29286 which were also dismissed by the Hon‟ble Apex Court by its order,