THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.2459, 2462, 2463, 2465, 2466, 2467, 2468, 2469, 2470, 2471, 2472, 2473, 2474 and

2477 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

These Civil Revision Petitions are filed against the Common Order dated 22.08.2022 in E.A.Nos.37 to 43, 46 to 52 of 2018 in E.P.No.15 of 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge for trial of offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (POA) Act, 1989-cum-III-Additional District Judge, Sangareddy.

2. Petitioners herein have filed an application vide E.A.No.37 of 2018 in E.P.No.15 of 2015, against respondents under Order 21 rules 84, 85 and 86 R/w. rule 90 of Section 151 CPC, seeking to set aside the auction sale conducted on 05.06.2018 in favour of auction purchaser/respondent No.9. The trial Court after considering the arguments of both sides, dismissed the application on costs. Aggrieved by the said Order, petitioners preferred the present Civil Revision Petitions.

3. Petitioners stated that said auction was conducted on 05.06.2018. The respondent No.9/auction purchaser instead of depositing Rs.51,00,000/-, paid only Rs.50,00,000/- and filed a memo requesting the Court to grant time for payment of balance amount of Rs.1,00,000/-, and thus the case was posted to 06.06.2018, for payment of balance amount of 1/4^th of the bid amount. Accordingly, respondent No.9 had paid the balance amount on 06.06.2018 and the case was posted to 19.06.2018, for payment of remaining amount, but there was no compliance of Order 21 rules 84 to 86. There are no specific boundaries for the land measuring Acs.17-00 gts out of Acs.27-00 gts in Sy.No.120. Without specific boundaries, auction should not have been conducted. For non-compliance of the Order 21 rules 84 to 86, warrant for resale of the property should have been issued and the memo filed by the auction purchaser for extension of time for depositing 25 % of the bid amount was not legal. As the petitioners are one of the purchasers of the property out of Acs.21-00 gts, they filed the applications to set aside the auction conducted on 05.06.2018.

4. Respondents No.1 and 9 filed their counter affidavits separately and contended that balance of Rs.1,00,000/- was paid with the permission of the Court on 06.06.2018, after filing of the memo and the total sale consideration of Rs.2,04,00,000/- was also paid within 15 days from the date of auction. The decree holder filed a memo along with sketch map pointing out Acs.17-00 gts out of Acs.27-00 gts of the land. The sale deeds created by the petitioners were sub-judice as it was shown as one of the suit schedule properties. Petitioners have no locus standi to question the same as they were not a party to the suit and E.P.No.15 of 2015. When petitioners are seeking to set aside the auction sale, they have to make their readiness by depositing the amount mentioned under Clauses (a) and (b), sub-rule (1) of rule 89 of Order 21 of the CPC, within 30 days from the date of sale. Though they filed E.A.No.64 of 2018, for deposit of Rs.66,95,000/-, they failed to deposit 5% of the amount as mentioned under Order 21 rule 89 (a) of the Code, which is a condition precedent for entertaining the application. When the Judgment debtors in the execution applications are parties to the suit, they have no alienable right in favour of the petitioners. Petitioners are fully aware of the fact of filing the suit, attachments and proclamations and conducting of auction. After issuance of paper publication, they created sham and nominal documents in their favour. They have not made any mention about earlier E.P.No.103 of 2006, filed prior to the present E.P.No.15 of 2015.

5. Item No.2 of the suit schedule property in O.S.No.93 of 2003 was put for auction and charge on the said property was already created in the year 2006 itself. When the decree was passed, the property was sold by the decree holder and the vendors of the petitioners have no right to alienate the property in favour of third par