JUDGMENT:

The appellant/first respondent/decree holder has filed this appeal suit assailing the order dated 09.05.2007 in E.A.No.19 of 2006 in E.P.No.36 of 2000 in O.S.No.378 of 1998 on the file of the learned Special Judge for Economic Offences-cum-VIII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XXII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad.

2. This application in E.A.No.19 of 2006 was filed by the claim petitioner/auction purchaser/third party under Order-XXI Rule-58 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to set aside the order of attachment made in I.A.No.878 of 1998 in O.S.No.378 of 1998 and to pass orders in favour of the claim petitioner.

3. The learned judge of the trial Court has allowed the claim petition and attachment in respect of the suit schedule property made in O.S.No.378 of 1998 was set aside declaring the claim petitioner as absolute owner of the suit schedule property - Flat bearing No.103, 1st floor, Block-B of the building known as Panchavati Apartments bearing Municipal No.6-1-132/10 on Plot No.10, Survey No.15 (old No.30/2) having plinth area 830 square feet together with the undivided share of land admeasuring 44.44 square yards situated at Zamistanpur, Skandagiri, Padmaraonagar, Secunderabad (hereinafter referred to as “suit schedule property” for the sake of convenience). Feeling aggrieved by the impugned order, the first respondent/decree holder-M/s.TCI Finance Limited, Secunderabad has preferred this appeal.

Pleadings in E.A.No.19 of 2006 in E.P.No.36 of 2000 in O.S.No.378 of 1998:

4 (a). The claim petitioner has filed an application under Order-XXI Rule-58 of C.P.C. against the respondent Nos.1 to 6 alleging that she is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property having purchased the same under an auction-sale conducted by the sixth respondent-State Bank of Hyderabad, Kushaiguda branch, Hyderabad, being the highest bidder. The then Chief Manager of sixth respondent-bank, being the Authorized Officer under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short “SARFAESI Act”) and in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 13 read with Rule 12 of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 (for short “the Rules”) sold the suit property in the public auction conducted on 05.12.2005. Thereafter on behalf of the bank, executed a sale certificate under Rule 9 (6) of the Rules in favour of the claim petitioner, who was the highest bidder and she was put in possession of the property. The said sale certificate was also registered on 20.01.2006, vide document No.174 of 2006.

4 (b). Since the time of purchase the claim petitioner is in peaceful, interrupted and continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit flat, she was further informed by the bank officials that the second respondent-Jalaram Plastics Private Limited, Cherlapally, Hyderabad, has approached their bank for financial assistance and the bank has sanctioned Cash Credit Hypothecation Facility creating charge over the assets and also creating equitable mortgage of suit flat belonging to the third respondent-M. Vishwanath and another property of other directors.

Accordingly, a Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds enclosing the sale deed dated 22.06.1988 was made as such the attachment, if any in favour of the decree holder only creates a second charge in view of the earlier equitable mortgage in favour of the sixth respondent-bank.

4 (c). The petitioner further stated that some persons have visited the suit flat and one of the persons visited has also shown a paper publication which was published in local Telugu newspaper daily “Praja Shakthi” dated 18.08.2006 intimating that towards the realization of decretal amount, the suit property is brought to sale, and auction which would be conducted on 18.09.2006 by the Court in E.P.No.36 of 2000. Accordingly, the claim petitioner has filed the claim petition claiming to be the absolute owner of the suit sched