ORDER:

The present civil revision petition is filed questioning the order dated 20.10.2014 in E.A.No.35 of 2012 in E.P.No.100 of 2010 in O.S.No.268 of 2008 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Giddalur.

2. The petitioners are the claimants. Respondent No.1 is the decree holder, respondent No.2 is judgment debtor and respondent No.3 is the auction purchaser. The schedule property was sold for realization of the decretal amount on 10.10.2011.

The same was confirmed on 14.12.2011.

3. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the present application E.A.No.35 of 2012 to set aside the sale on the ground that they are having right and title over the schedule property as they had purchased the same under a registered sale deed No.436/1968 dated 13.03.1968, S.R.O, Cumbum, Prakasam District. It is the case of the petitioners that prior to the auction of the schedule properties, no document showing ownership of the judgment debtor was filed and the trial Court without examining this aspect conducted the auction on the premise that the property belongs to respondent No.2. The trial Court after enquiry dismissed the application vide order dated 20.10.2014. Questioning the same, the present civil revision petition is filed.

4. Heard Sri Syed Khader Mastan,learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, this Court raised a query as to how the civil revision petition can be maintained. The Order 43 Rule 1(j) C.P.C., provides for an appeal against an order passed under Order 21 Rule 92 CPC. The application filed by the petitioners to set aside the sale comes under Order 21 Rule 91 C.P.C., as the sale is sought to be set aside on the ground that the judgment debtor/respondent No.2 is not having interest in the property. Order 21 Rule 92 C.P.C., provides that where an application to set aside a sale is allowed or disallowed, an appeal would lie under Order 43 Rule

1(j) C.P.C.

6. Therefore, the present revision filed by the petitioner cannot be maintained. Even, if the application of the petitioner is to be treated as an application under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C., the petitioners would have to file an appeal before the concerned appellate Court.

7. Hence, the civil revision petition cannot be maintained and the same is dismissed for want of maintainability. However, considering that the petitioners have pursued the litigation before this Court under bona fide impression that this Court has jurisdiction, this Court is of the opinion that the period from the date of filing of the revision till the date of receipt of certified copy of the order of this revision be excluded while computing limitation under section 14 of the Limitation Act for filing appeal. No order as to costs. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 13.09.2024 KLP