APHC010060582025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3299]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 292/2025 Between:

Emani Sujatha, ...PETITIONER AND Chitturi Ram Mohan and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. B P RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 292 of 2025

JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri B. P. Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

2. This civil revision petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’) challenging the Order dated 27.01.2025 passed in E.A.No.36 of 2024 in E.P.No.01 of 2019 in O.S.No.178 of 2014 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaikalur, Krishna District.

3. The petitioner is the judgment debtor. The plaintiff/2^nd respondent filed O.S.No.178 of 2014, as aforesaid, for grant of decree for recovery of money against the petitioner/defendant. The suit was decreed on 06.06.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the decree attained finality as the appeal was not filed there against.

3. For execution of the decree, the plaintiff/2^nd respondent filed E.P.No.01 of 2019 against the petitioner/judgment debtor. On 27.04.2023 the Court conducted public auction of the E.P. schedule property. The auction was in favour of the auction purchaser, the 1^st respondent herein. He deposited 1/4^th of the auction amount and the remaining amount was also deposited in the Court in time. The same was confirmed on 02.04.2024. Sale certificate was also issued on 02.05.2024 and the E.P. was closed on 02.05.2024. The auction purchaser filed E.A.No.36 of 2024 for delivery of possession of the auctioned property. The same has been allowed by Order dated 27.01.2025.

Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition has been filed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the value of the E.P.

schedule property was higher than the value as fixed in auction proceedings. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not show if any such objection was raised before the Execution Court at the appropriate stage in execution proceedings. The present is the stage of delivery of auctioned property. As per the impugned order, the objection that was raised was with respect to the pendency of the I.P.No.25 of 2023 before the XI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gudivada. The Court considered that aspect and found that there was no order of the Insolvency Court adjudicating the petitioner as insolvent. There was no order of stay as well. Considering the same, the application E.A.No.36 of 2024 was allowed for delivery of possession, for which the Court passed the order, to issue warrant against the 2^nd respondent, i.e., the present petitioner.

5. It is well settled in law that in execution proceedings, the objections are to be raised at the appropriate stage. When the property was put in auction and if any objection required under law to be raised at that stage, including of valuation of the subject property, is not raised at the appropriate stage, it cannot be raised at the subsequent stage, i.e., at the stage of delivery of possession of the auctioned property. The submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner has got no force. 6. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

7. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.

_______________________

RAVI NATH TILHARI, J Date: 07.02.2025 Dsr