K VIJAYA ANAND Vs. SUVARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rama Krishna, appearing for Sri V. Hari Haran, learned counsel for the first respondent. The other respondents did not appear. The point in this revision is whether the local amendment made by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to Rule 85 of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Code) requiring the auction purchaser to deposit along with the full purchase money, the amount required for general stamp i.e., Non-Judicial Stamp paper for issuing the sale certificate can be said to have become invalid after the Code was amended by the Central Amendment Act 104 of 1976 (the Central Amendment Act).

(2.) If the above local amendment is held to be invalid the petitioner would succeed in the revision or else he would fail.

(3.) The point arises in the following circumstances. The second respondent P. Narasimhulu, who is the decree holder brought the suit O.S. No. 148 of 2000 in the court of III Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against the third respondent/judgment debtor and obtained a money decree against him. In execution of the said decree, he filed E.P. No. 93 of 2003 and the concerned immovable property of the judgment debtor was attached.