KEDARISETTI ATMARAM Vs. N SEETHARAMARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 24.08.2007 passed in E.P. No. 86 of 2005 in O.S. No. 71 of 2002 by the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, whereby and whereunder, the objections filed by the Petitioner herein in the form of counter for execution of the decree were overruled.

(2.) While the Petitioner herein was facing insolvency proceedings in I.P. No. 14 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, the Respondent herein, who is also the second Respondent in the said insolvency proceedings, filed O.S. No. 71 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tadepalligudem, for specific performance basing on the agreement of sale. The Petitioner herein was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed in the said suit on 17.09.1992. The Petitioner herein filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him. He also filed an application to condone the delay of 278 days in filing the said application. However, the said application was dismissed for default. The Petitioner again filed another application to restore the same and the same is pending.

(3.) The I.P. No. 14 of 1990, filed against the Petitioner, was allowed on 24.11.1998. The matter was carried in appeal and in appeal the order of the Insolvency Court was set aside in A.S. No. 4 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Tanuku. Meanwhile, the Respondent filed E.P (SR) No. 2394 of 1996 for execution of the decree in O.S. No. 71 of 1992. However, an objection was raised that the E.P. was not maintainable for non-deposit of the remaining sale consideration amount and, therefore, the said E.P. was not pressed and consequently it was rejected on 17.07.2002. Subsequently, the Respondent filed I.A. No. 302 of 2001 in O.S. No. 71 of 1992 to condone the delay of 2928 days in depositing the balance of sale consideration amount. The said petition was allowed on 17.09.2002. Though the said order was challenged in revision in C.R.P. No. 3124 of 2008 before this Court, but the said CRP was dismissed on 09.11.2009. Basing on the orders in I.A. No. 302 of 2001, the Respondent deposited the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/- on 20.09.2002 and then filed the present E.P. No. 86 of 2005. The Petitioner herein raised several objections. His case was that summons were not served on him and that he filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree and the said application is pending and that the Respondent had fraudulently obtained the decree without paying him the sale consideration amount and the endorsements on the agreement of sale Ex.A1 are not genuine and that there is inordinate delay in filing the E.P and that the E.P. was not maintainable. The lower Court, holding that the Respondent had already filed I.A. No. 302 of 2001 and that the delay in depositing the balance of sale consideration was condoned in the said application and that the earlier petition filed by the Petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree was dismissed and therefore there are no valid objections raised by the Petitioner, has passed the impugned order on 24.08.2007, which is under challenge in this revision.