CRP/3849/2013 of Madiki Prasada Rao Vs R.J.P.Satyanarayana on 30 December 2014

ORDER:

Aggrieved by the order, dated 19.07.2013, passed by the I Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in E.A. No.21 of2012 in E.P. No.33 of 2009 in O.P. No.75 of 2006, against the auctionpurchaser and Decree Holder seeking to set aside the sale by publicauction conducted and the bid knocked by auction purchaser, the 2[nd]respondent to the revision petition, that was since ended in dismissalfor no grounds to set aside the sale, the Judgment Debtor - revisionpetitioner contends that the lower court should have seen that the salewas not conducted by following the procedure established by law andthe sale is liable to be set aside and the Court below went wrong indismissing the execution application filed seeking to set aside the salewithin the time. The amounts paid not deducted and sale knockeddown behind his back for utterly low price. Hence, learned counsel forthe revision petitioner seeks to allow the revision by setting aside thesale.

02. Whereas, it is the contention of learned counsel for theDecree Holder – first respondent to the revision petition as well as thefirst respondent to the execution application before the lower courtcovered by the impugned order, dated 19.07.2013, of amounts paiddeducted and sale conducted for what was due to a fair price andhence to dismiss the revision for no merits. However, it is thesubmission without going into the merits, by the auction purchaser –2[nd] respondent to the revision that he is willing to set aside the sale ifthe Judgment Debtor, (who filed execution application seeking to setaside the sale even went unsuccessful for no merits), is ready todeposit the amount deposited by the auction purchaser with interestand with poundage amount payable to the Government/ Court of theauction confirmed and sale certificate issued besides the amountequal to the stamp duty paid for the engrossing of sale certificate.

03. Heard. Perused the material on record.

04. Now the points for consideration are,

i) Whether there are any grounds to set aside the sale and if so with what observations?

ii) To what result?

Point No.i:

05. In view of conceding by the auction purchaser, this Courtwhile sitting in revision against the impugned order of the court belowneed not go into detailed merits of the matter, but for left open to therevision petitioner - Judgment Debtor for his claim of Rs.4,50,000/-paid as admitted in the counter of the Decree Holder, however sayingthat was given deduction, if not really deducted in the public auctionsale conducted for the amount shown due under the decree, to claimdeduction or reimbursement from the Decree Holder by filingapplication under Section 47 read with Section 151 of the Code ofCivil Procedure, 1908.

06. So far as the dispute between the Judgment Debtor - revisionpetitioner and the auction purchaser is concerned, in view of theunderstanding by Judgment Debtor, to refund the auction sale amountdeposited by auction purchaser with interest @ 9% per annum from thedate of the respective deposits including poundage amount if paidadditionally till payment or deposit of amount in to Court by JudgmentDebtor with notice to auction purchaser and also the stamp dutyexpenses incurred by the auction purchaser in engrossing the salecertificate of Sub-Registrar value fixed without interest liability, on thestamp duty amount with any incidental expenses to reimburse by theJudgment Debtor, sale is to be set aside. This order setting aside thesale will come in to force with effect from the date of payment ordeposit by the Judgment Debtor to the auction purchaser for whichtime fixed to deposit is three months from today. It is needless to sayany amount lying to the credit of the execution petition in the Courtafter satisfaction of actual decree debt with execution expenses

including poundage, the Judgment debtor is entitled to take back thesame by filing cheque petition. It is needless to observe that if theJudgment Debtor failed to deposit as referred supra within threemonths from today, the order, dated 19.07.2013, passed by the IAdditional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, in E.A. No.21 of 2012in E.P. No.33 of 2009 in O.P. No.75 of 2006 holds good withoutprejudice to the rights of the auction purchaser. Any dispute oncorrectness of decree debt claimed in execution petition is betweenJudgment Debtor and Decree Holder, left open to decide underSection 47 C.P.C. as referred supra.

07. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of. Thereshall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendingin this revision shall stand closed.

_______________________________

Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO, J

30.12.2014

BV