COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions arising out of Orders passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2014 and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.16 of 2014, dated 27.02.2015 which preferred against Orders passed in petitions filed by the petitioner in EA No.195 of 2009 and EA No.196 of 2009 in EP No.238 of 2007 in OS.No.89 of 2007 on the file of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal, dated 31.10.2014. Since the question of law and contents to be dealt with in both the Civil Revision Petitions are similar, can be disposed of by a Common Order.

2. The CRP No.2614 of 2015 has been filed against the Common Order and decree passed in EA No.196 of 2009 in EP No.238 of 2007 in OS.No.89 of 2007, dated 31.10.2014 which confirmed in CMA No.16 of 2014 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal. The CRP No.2536 of 2015 has been filed against the Common Order and decree passed in EA No.195 of 2009 in EP No.238 of 2007 in OS.No.89 of 2007, dated 31.10.2014 which confirmed in CMA No.15 of 2014 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal.

3. The respondent/Decree holder obtained money decree against the petitioner in OS.No.89 of 2007, dated 16.07.2007 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Nandyal. After obtaining the decree, the respondent filed EP No.238 of 2007 for sale of immovable property of petitioner, which is an agricultural land, to an extent of Ac.5.05 cents, wherein the sale was conducted on 12.08.2008, and confirmed on 20.10.2008 and sale certificate was issued on 20.10.2008, and the EP schedule property delivered to the respondent on 09.03.2009. Then, on 06.04.2009 the revision petitioner has filed EA No.195 of 2009 to set aside the ex parte Order passed in Execution Petition, dated 26.10.2007 and also filed EA No.196 of 2009 under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC to set aside the sale, dated 12.08.2008.

4. Before the executing Court, on behalf of the revision petitioner, PWs.1 to 4 were examined and marked Exs.A1 to A6. On behalf of the respondent, RWs.1 to 9 were examined. Exs.B1 to B11 were marked.

5. After hearing both sides, the executing Court, dismissed both the petitions filed by the revision petitioner by Common Order.

Challenging the Common Orders passed by the executing Court, the revision petitioner has preferred CMA No.15 of 2014 and CMA No.16 of 2014 on the file of learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, wherein the learned appellate Judge has passed separate Orders, confirming the Common Order and decrees, passed by the executing Court by its Order, dated 27.02.2015.

6. The case of the revision petitioner before the executing Court in brief is that on 26.10.2007 the respondent obtained ex parte decree against him, and thereafter filed execution petition, wherein he has not served with notice, and he was set ex parte and he came to know through his wife on 26.03.2009 about obtaining the possession by the respondent, as his wife received the notice, on 11.03.2009 and then he came to know about passing of an ex parte decree in the suit and also ex parte Orders passed against him in the execution petition and then he filed petitions to set aside the ex parte Order in execution petition, dated 26.10.2007 and also filed petition under Order XXI, Rule 90 of CPC to set aside the sale. The petitioner also stated that in a petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 90 of CPC, that the value of the EP schedule property is worth of Rs.20,00,000/-, but it was purchased by the respondent in Court auction with paltry amount, due to that he prays to set aside the sale.

7. The respondent/Decree holder filed counters before the executing Court in both the petitions, filed by the revision petitioner with similar averments, stating that these petitions are not maintainable under Order XXI, Rule 106 of CPC, as the Order is made under Rule 105 of Order XXI of CPC. He submits that the summons have been s