BIRUDUVOLU HARANADHA REDDY Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil revision petition is filed by the revision petitioner-second judgment debtor against an order made in E.A.No.372 of 1998 in E.P.No.34 of 1992 in O.S.No.1 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur dated 2-2-1999.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the first respondent in the revision, the decree holder filed a suit O.S.No. 1 of 1989 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kovur against the father of the revision petitioner for realization of the loan amount and the suit was decreed. The present petitioner was brought on record as the legal representative of the defendant in the suit. The respondent No.1 to execute the said money decree, had filed E.P.No.34 of 1992 and brought the properties of the revision petitioner to sale and item No.4 was auctioned and the second respondent became the successful bidder and auction purchaser. The revision petitioner filed E.A. 372 of 1998 under Or.21 Rule 89 C.P.C. for setting aside the sale. The said execution application was dismissed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovur by order dated 2-2-1999 and aggrieved by the same the present revision petition is filed.

(3.) Sri B. Srinarayana, representing Sri Ravindranath Reddy, made the following submissions: Sri B. Srinarayana had contended that the object of conducting the sale is only for realization of the amount and the first respondent decree holder being a Bank, since at present the revision petitioner second judgment debtor is willing to pay the amount, in equity sale may be set aside on receiving the amount. The learned Counsel also had contended that the value fetched is very low and because of the sale conducted much prejudice is caused to the revision petitioner.