ORDER:

Judgment debtor filed this Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. The challenge raised is against a docket order dated 02.08.2019 passed by learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in E.A.No.196 of 2019 and E.P.No.130 of 2006 in O.S.No.33 of 2000.

2. Respondent No.1 is DHR and respondent No.2 is auction purchaser.

3. Before the learned executing Court/1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur the JDR/Revision petitioner filed E.A.No.196 of 2019 under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC with the following prayer:

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit the petitioner/JDR/defendant prays this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to allow the application and set aside the sale order and pass such other necessary orders in the interest of justice.”

The said application was dated 27.07.2019. The learned executing Court having entertained the application, ordered notices to respondents and posted the matter to 02.08.2019.

4. On 02.08.2019, the said application was dealt with and the learned executing court passed the following order:

“As delivery warrant is affected, the petition is infructuous and hence Closed.”

5. It is that above extracted order that is challenged in this Civil Revision Petition. The contentions raised is that the order passed is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to law and the executing court was biased and earlier it passed orders in three applications without giving notice to the DHR/revision petitioner and those applications are:

1.E.A.No.185 of 2019 (for advancing the matter from

27.09.2019 to 19.07.2019

2.E.A.No.186 of 2019 (for breaking open the doors)

3.E.A.No.187 of 2019 (for granting police aid)

6. Learned executing Court failed to consider the contentions of JDR and it failed to take note of deposits made by this JDR namely Rs.1,00,000/- on 0.4.12.2019 and Rs.2,00,000/- on 24.08.2016. The decretal amount is Rs 1,69,187/-. Learned executing Court failed to appreciate that the JDR had already paid a substantial amount under the decree. It ought to have given a last chance to JDR under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC and should have considered the condonation delay application. The Court below violated order XXI Rule 64 CPC and it failed to take steps and stop delivery warrant. It is for these reasons the revision petitioner seeks to set aside the order.

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondents submit that prolixity and frivolity has been the hall mark of present revision petitioner/JDR and all the contentions raised here in were already addressed by this Court in C.R.P.No.4032 of 2016 and the said C.R.P. was dismissed by a reasoned order of this Court on 10.06.2019 and despite all that, to prolong the matter further JDR has come up with this application on 26.09.2019 and sought for dismissal of this application.

8. After hearing submissions on both sides and after considering the entire material on record the point that falls for consideration before this Court is:

“whether the executing court erroneously exercised its jurisdiction by ignoring the procedure prescribed under law and that the order is illegal or irregular deserving Interference?”

9. A few facts are required to be noted here:

on a promissory note dated 28.08.1997 the plaintiff sued the defendant in O.S.No.33 of 2000. Learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki held trial of the matter and on merits by a judgment dated 11.07.2005, it decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff with a direction to the defendant therein to pay the decretal amount. It is undisputed that the decree direction was not complied with by the defendant/JDR. Subsequently, the decree was transferred for execution and the matters were agitated before learned 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. Before the transferee executing Court, DHR/plaintiff filed E.P.No.130 of 2006 under Order XXI Rule 54, 64, 65, 66 of code of Civil Procedure and sought for attachment of an immovable property that was owned by JDR/defendant. During the course of execution, the EP sched