K NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. N RAMAMOHAN RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed against the order dt 25-1-1988 passed by the Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru in C.M.A. No. 30 of 1987, dismissing the appeal and confirming the order dated 27-4-1987 passed in E.A.No.666 of 1986 in E.P.No.250 of 1984 in O.S.No.468 of 1980 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Eluru,

(2.) The brief facts leading to this revision petition are thus: One Challagali Nagaraju (3rd respondent herein) filed Original Suit No. 468 of 1980 in the Court of the I Additional District Munsif, Eluru, against one Smt. N. Kanaka Durgamba and others for the recovery of Rs. 5,508/- with subsequent interest; it was decreed on 22-2-1983, and thereafter execution petition was filed by the decree holder for the recovery of a total amount of Rs. 7,001/-. The entire procedure of execution was followed, the scheduled property was attached and thereafter the property was sold in Court auction on 16-7-1986, subject of course to the mortgage standing thereon. The petitioner herein was the highest bidder for Rs. 80,000/- in that auction sale; proceedings were then adjourned to 31-7-1986 for the confirmation of sale. Pending these proceedings, the Judgment Debtor deposited an amount of Rs 20,000/- on 24-7-1986 towards the decretal amount, for which, a challan was issued and the amount was deposited in State Bank of India. Similarly, on that date, the auction-purchaser also deposited an amount of Rs. 64,000/- towards the purchase money. Then, the Judgment Debtor filed E.A.No.666 of 1986 on 24-7-1986 under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC alleging that as he had deposited the decretal amount and other expenses in the Court within thirty days from the date of sale, the sale was liable to be set aside. The 1st respondent i.e. the Decree Holder did not contest it. However, auction- purchaser/petitioner filed his counter contending mat he was the bona fide purchaser on die date of the auction, and the Judgment Debtor had not paid any amount till men and had expressed his inability to pay the amount, hence his application for getting the sale set aside was liable to be dismissed, as it was mala fide. The executing Court allowed the said application of the judgment debtor on 27-4-87. The auction-purchaser, being aggrieved by the said order, filed C.M.A.No.30 of 1987 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, which was dismissed on 25-1-1988 and the order passed by the executing Court was upheld. Now, against this impugned order passed in C.M.A.NO. 30 of 1987, by the Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru the auction-purchaser has filed this revision petition.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have carefully gone through the record of the case. None appears for the respondents.