*THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY

+ C.R.P. No.3392 of 2023

% 31.01.2025

Between:

Munaga Venkateswarlu

...Petitioner

And

Yarava Tirupathi Reddy

...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellant: Smt. Nimmagadda Revathi

Counsel for the Respondent(S): Sri M.R.S.Srinivas

< Gist :

> Head Note:

? Cases Referred: 1 1988 (2) ALT 417

2 2000 (2) ALD 86 (SC)

3 2006 (2) SCC 608 4 2016 (2) ALD 751

5 AIR 1968 SC 86

6 (2017) 8 SCC 272 7 (2020) 3 ALD 326

APHC010651922023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3460]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY ,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3392/2023 Between:

Munaga Venkateswarlu ...PETITIONER AND Yarava Tirupathi Reddy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent:

1. M R S SRINIVAS The Court made the following:

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3392 of 2023

ORDER:

The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 02.12.2023 passed in un-numbered E.A.No.__of 2023 in E.P.No.130 of 2022 O.S.No.467 of 2019 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tenali, Guntur District in rejecting the petition.

2. The introductory facts: The Petitioner is the Defendant. The suit O.S.No.467 of 2019 was filed for recovery of money due under a registered Mortgage Deed dated 14.05.2009. A Preliminary Decree was passed on the contest on 26.08.2021. Thereafter, a Final Decree in I.A.No.1160 of 2021 was passed on 07.05.2022 for auctioning the scheduled property as the Petitioner/Defendant did not come forward to discharge the amount due under the Preliminary Decree.

3. Accordingly, the Respondent/Plaintiff filed E.P.No.130 of 2022. On 17.04.2023. The sale was held and the auction was confirmed in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff and he was declared as highest bidder. The bid amounts due were paid within the time specified.

4. The Petitioner/Defendant filed an application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC on 01.08.2023, which was numbered as E.A.No.265 of 2023 seeking to deposit the decretal amount. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.08.2023 on contest and on merits by holding that the application was filed beyond the period of 60 days from the date of auction as prescribed under Article 127 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, the sale was confirmed in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff on 21.8.2023 and the Sale Certificate was also issued in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff on 21.8.2023.

5. After filing of E.A.No.265 of 2023, the Petitioner/Defendant had filed another E.A. on 04.08.2023 vide C.F.No.4044 of 2023 under Order 34 Rules 1 & 5 CPC requesting the Court to permit the Petitioner to pay the decretal amount along with 5% additional amount on purchase amount in favour of the Respondent/Plaintiff apart from costs. This application was returned on 04.08.2022 with an objection as to how the application is maintainable for sending the E.P amount to the Court as the Petitioner/Defendant filed another E.A.No.265 of

2023 under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC.

6. The Petitioner did not re-present the returned E.A and proceeded to contest E.A.No.265 of 2023 as narrated above. The returned E.A was re-presented after dismissal of E.A.No.265 of 2023 stating that there is no bar for filing the petition under Order 34 Rules 1 & 5 CPC. The said application was again returned on 23.08.2023 on the ground as the sale was confirmed and sale certificate was issued to the auction purchaser. Questioning the return of the E.A, the Petitioner filed C.R.P.No.2456 of 2023 before this Court and the same was allowed on 05.10.2023 directing the trial court to register the EA and hear the Petitioner and Respondent and pass orders thereon.

7. Pursuant to the orders of this Court, the returned E.A was re- presented on 27.11.2023. The trial Court thereafter dismissed the E.A on the ground that the Sale Certificate was issued in favour of the auction