DASARI SIVA PRASADA RAO Vs. PASUPULETI SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case demonstrates as to how the judicial process was put to gross misuse. Unfortunately, the Presiding Officer of the Court did not exhibit the care and caution, which was expected of him, to curtail such practices.

(2.) The petitioners purchased a plot of 378 square yards at Chellapalli through separate sale deeds, dated 23-2-2005, from respondents 2 to 6 herein. Few weeks thereafter, they received a notice, dated 14-3-2005, from the 1st respondent to the effect that he lent a sum of Rs.2,25,000/- to respondents 2 to 6 and that he came to know about the proposal of the latter to alienate the property to defeat his claim. The petitioners got issued a reply, dated 28-3-2005, to the 1st respondent. They stated that they purchased the property from respondents 2 to 6 for valuable consideration through sale deeds, dated 23-2-2005, and that the sale consideration, to their knowledge, was deposited in the Vijaya Bank. They alleged that the so-called liability of respondents 2 to 6 to the 1 st respondent is fictitious. Thereafter, the 1st respondent got issued a rejoinder, dated 16-4-2005 stating for the first time that the transaction between him and respondents 2 to 6 is evidenced by a pronote, dated 18-11-2002.

(3.) The 1st respondent, claiming to be a creditor filed I.P. No.18 of 2005, on 29-4-2005, the last working day before closure for the summer vacation, in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. He also filed I.A. No. 168 of 2005 under Section 20 of the Provincial Insolvency Act, 1920 (for short "the Act") read with Section 151 C.P.C., to appoint an Interim Receiver to take possession of the 'A' Schedule property, which is covered by the sale deeds, dated 23-2-2005. The trial Court ordered the same. Hence, this revision.