LEGU VENKATARAMANAYYA SETTY Vs. GUNDA SUBBAYYA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition is directed against the orders of the Subordinate Judge, Kurnool dated June 1957 which called upon the petitioner to furnish security of immoveable property in order that the petitioners application to set aside the sale held on 25-11-1957 could be proceeded with by the Court. The order of the lower court is attacked on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the learned Subordinote Judge ignored the earlier order dated 24-1-1958 of the same court calling upon the petitioner to furnish third party personal security and that therefore the latter order dated 24-6-1958 is without jurisdiction.

(2.) The short facts which need be mentioned are the following: As against the petitioner. a decreewas obtained by the respondent in O. S. No. 54 of 1954. The decree-holder proceeded to execute the decree and brought the properties of the petitioner to sale in E. P. No. 92 of 1956 and the decree-holder knocked the properties at the auction in his favour after obtaining the permission of the Court for Rs. 20,000/ while the decree in his gavour was for Rs. 24,000/ and odd. The present petitioner there upon filed E.A. C.F.R. No. 8289/7 on 11-12-1957 under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C toset aside the sale alleging material irregularities in the conduct of the sale. The lower court, as could be gathered from the notes made on the execution application C.F.R. 8289/7 heard the arguments on 24-1-1957 and passed an order that "the petitioner is directed to give party personal security within 10 days".It appears the time for giving the surety was extended from time to time. It also transpires that in pursuance of this order, E.A. No. 26 of 1958 dated 11-2-1958 was filed by the petitioner requesting the Court to accept the bond of his security, one Narellapalli Ramaswami, and that this application came upfor orders before the Court on 24-6-1958. By then the learned Subordinate Judge who passed the orders on 24-1-1957 seems to have been transferred and another has come in his place. The latter Subordinate Judge, however, has passed a brief order which is the subject-matter of this revision. It is in the following words: `24-6-1958 for furnishing security of immoveable property 7-7-1958".

(3.) No reasons are given why a fresh order of this kind should be made by the learned succeeding Subordinate Judge. It is not also possible to find from this order whether he acquainted himself with the earlier order made by his predecessor on 24-1-1958. Thereafter the lower court has been granting time for furnishing immoveable property as security. The petitioner, however, chose to question that order and therefore has not till now furnished that security.