COMMON ORDER:

These two Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Sec.115 of C.P.C. and they are between the same parties and subject matter is connected to one another and therefore they can be disposed of by this common order.

2) The revision petitioner was the defendant in O.S.99 of 2015 and is respondent in E.P.34 of 2017.

3) Alleging that the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.2,50,000/- from one M.Gopal of Dharmavaram and that he had executed a registered simple mortgage deed keeping immovable property as security, the suit in O.S.99 of 2015 was filed by the legal representatives of the creditor/mortgagee/ Sri M.Gopal stating that the mortgagee died. The defendant contested the suit and finally learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram found truth in the case of plaintiffs therein and granted the relief and ordered for drawing up preliminary decree, by giving opportunity to the defendant therein to pay Rs.3,95,000/- with interest to plaintiffs therein within a span of three months failing which the plaintiff were given liberty to seek for final decree and sale of mortgaged property towards the realization of the decretal amount. It is not known when the final decree was passed. During the subsequent periods those plaintiffs filed E.P.34 of 2017 under Order XXI Rule 64 and 66 C.P.C. for sale of the mortgaged property which is shown in the E.P.Schedule.

4) During the pendency of those proceedings defendant/J.Dr therein filed E.A.97 of 2019 under Order VIII Rule 14 and Sec.151 of C.P.C. with a prayer to condone the delay and receive five documents that are listed in the application. A counter was put in by the opposite side. The J.Dr also filed E.A.85 of 2019 under Order XVI Rule 14 and Sec.151 of C.P.C. seeking summons to the Tahsildar, Dharmavaram to give evidence on his behalf and requested the Court to examine him as a court witness. The respondents therein filed their counter resisting the prayer. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Dharmavaram heard both the said applications and disposed of both the applications by two separate orders dt.14.08.2019.

5) Aggrieved by those Orders the applicant in both the execution applications who is the J.Dr preferred these two revision petitions. C.R.P.3328 of 2019 assails the order in E.A.97 of 2019. The C.R.P.3342 of 2019 assails the order in E.A.85 of 2019. The grounds urged in the both the revisions are similar. For respondents in these revisions, the learned counsel made appearance and contended that the orders of the lower court are correct and did not require any interference by this Revisional Court. The learned counsels on both sides submitted their arguments.

6) Now the point for determination is:-

Whether the impugned orders were illegal or suffer from material irregularity?

7) POINT:-

The substance of the dispute is that the revision petitioner raised a claim before the executing Court that E.P. schedule property is in S.No.494 and it was an assigned land and Government assigned patta and such property could not be brought for sale in execution of decree. As against these, the contention of the D.Hrs/respondents in these revisions is that the E.P. schedule property is a private property which the J.Dr admitted himself during the evidence and they are not the government assigned properties and therefore the objections raised by the J.Dr cannot be sustained. Learned executing Court found favour with the submissions made by the D.Hrs. While doing so, it also brought on record that J.Dr who intended to have documents received by the Court failed to satisfy it as to how they were connected to the J.Drs, since the name of the J.Dr Sri M.Mabu and all those documents stood in the name of Sri Gujjala Hanumanthu. In these revisions, it is stated that the proposed documents were initially not available with the revision petitioner and they were filed assigning the cause of delay and they ought to have been received and the observations of the executing court that they are irrelevant documents and