THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4702 of 2012

ORDER :

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner (Judgment Debtors) under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short C.P.C) assailing the order dated 05.09.2012 in E.A.No.81 of 2012 in E.P.No.41 of 2009 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Siddipet, District Medak, (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

2. Vide the impugned order, the petition filed by the respondent No.1/auction purchaser under Section 151 of C.P.C was allowed by the trial court directing the judgment debtor to pay an amount of Rs.2,70,000/- to the auction purchaser i.e., the petitioner therein to set aside the auction conducted on 27.12.2012 in respect of the schedule A property, failing which, the petitioner therein was permitted to deposit balance 75% of the sale amount to get sale dated 24.07.2012 to confirm.

3. The brief facts of the case are, the respondent No.2 being the decree holder filed an execution petition vide E.P.No.41 of 2009 seeking sale of immovable properties i.e., schedule A & B properties. Schedule-A(1) property consists of three bits i.e., land in Sy.No.282/E, extent Ac.1-07 ½ guntas, Sy.No.283/A, extent Ac.0-08 guntas, Sy.No.284/Aa, extent Ac.0-07 guntas, situated at Ponnal Village, wherein the judgment debtor was set exparte.

4. The judgment debtor after exhausting all the remedies, the said property was brought to the sale and auction was conducted; wherein the respondent No.1 auction purchaser was the successful bidder having participated in the said auction and paid amount of Rs.54,00,000/- for sale of the schedule property and the respondent No.1/auction purchaser has deposited 1/4^th amount of the Rs.13,50,000/- into the court. The balance amount was directed to be deposit within a period of fifteen (15)

days.

5. Before depositing the balance amounts by the auction purchaser, the decree holder contended that the judgment debtor has deposited entire E.P. amount towards full and final settlement and a full satisfaction memo also was filed into the court and the same was recorded and E.P. proceedings were closed. Therefore, the auction purchaser filed the present petition asking for confirmation of sale permitting him to deposit balance amount or otherwise to refund 1/4^th amount of Rs.13,50,000/- along with sum equal to 5% penalty of the auction amount as per Order XXI Rule 89 of C.P.C.

6. The decree holder has filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition and also he certified that the judgment debtor has paid the entire decreetal amount to the satisfaction of decree holder and he denied as to the seeking additional amount of sum equal to 5% of the auction amount and he also contended that since no sale certificate is issued, the petitioner herein not entitled to the additional amount of sum equal to 5% of the auction amount and therefore, prayed the court to dismiss the petition.

7. Respondent/judgment debtor also filed counter denying the averments therein contending that the petitioner therein has no locus to file the present application as the highest bidder is not the purchaser of the property unless the sale is confirmed he cannot be treated as a purchaser, as such he is not entitled for the sum equal to 5%.

8. Having heard the petitioner and the respondents, the learned trial court rejected the said application.

9. Being aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtor has filed the present civil revision petition contending that there is an error committed by the trial court in entertaining the petition under Section 151 of C.P.C seeking to confirm the sale held in auction or return the deposited amount of Rs.13,50,000/- along with sum equal to 5% of total purchase amount. It is further contended that as the sale has not been confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser as such the payment of Rs.2,75,000/- with sum equal to 5% of total purchase seems to be erroneous and sustainable.

10. Further it is contended that respo