GODAVARTHY VENKATESWARLU Vs. YELLANKI RAVI SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, flouted all the norms that are stipulated the context of execution of a decree. The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, had to approach this Court on number of occasions to protect his rights. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No. 139 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali, against the petitioner, for recovery of Rs. 2,15,683/- on the strength of promissory notes. The suit has been decreed ex parte on 28.12.2007 for a sum of Rs. 2,17,087/-. About two years after the decree was passed, the 1st respondent filed E.P. No. 134 of 2009 and an item of immovable property i.e., an extent of Ac. 1.87 cents in D. No. 26/2 of Pothumarri village, Guntur District, was attached. It was also put to sale on 14.03.2011. The 2nd respondent, who is said to be a close relation of the 1st respondent, was declared as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs. 8,70,000/-.

(2.) The petitioner filed an application, under Rule 90 of Order XXI CPC, by raising several objections to the auction sale. His contention was that the value of the property is more than Rs. 30.00 lakhs at that time, and the sale proclamation itself was not prepared, in accordance with law. Simultaneously, he filed C.R.P. No. 1555 of 2011 before this Court, challenging the auction sale. Taking note of the fact that the petitioner has already filed an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI CPC, this Court disposed of the CRP on 02.08.2011, directing that it shall be open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds and the executing Court was directed to entertain the application. The executing Court took up the application filed by the petitioner as E.A. No. 392 of 2011. However, it was dismissed for default on 15.02.2012. On the same day, it passed an order in the EP, confirming the sale and closing the EP. It issued a cheque for Rs. 52,200/- in favour of the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Tenali, for purchase of non-judicial stamps, for engrossing the sale certificate.

(3.) The petitioner filed C.R.P. No. 1598 of 2012, feeling aggrieved by the dismissal of E.A. No. 392 of 2011. This Court passed an interim order on 30.03.2012, directing stay of delivery of possession of the property, on condition that the petitioner shall deposit the entire EP amount by the next date of hearing. The 2nd respondent filed E.A. No. 168 of 2012, under Rule 98 of Order XXI CPC, with a prayer to deliver possession of the property. The executing Court passed an order on 21.02.2012, directing that notice returnable by 02.04.2012 be issued to the petitioner herein. On 02.04.2012, the executing Court passed an order, observing that delivery of the property was already effected on 22.03.2012. It was also noted that a telegram was received on 31.03.2012 from this Court to the effect that in CRP No. 1598 of 2012, an order of interim stay of delivery of possession, on condition that the petitioner shall deposit the decretal amount, has been passed.