ANKAYYA Vs. MASTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Achi Ankayya, has filed this Revision Petition for setting aside the order of the learned District Judge, Nellore in G. M. A. No. 14 of 1963 on bis file dismissing that appeal. The respondents before me are the decree-holders and auction-purchasers who were the respondents in G. M. A. 14 of 1963. The material facts and dates are as follows:-

(2.) It will be observed that the facts of that case are substantially similar the facts of the present case in all relevant aspects and that. decis on was rightly relied upon by the learned District Judge. In Sankaram Pillai vs Anantanarayana Aiyar the decision in Narasimhapattamanadevi v. Annam Naidu and Chidambaram v. Laksmi Narayana Chettlar were reliad on and approved. The learned Judge observed as follows:- (PP 313-314)

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to rely on the decision of this Court in Venkataramaiah v. Kesarmal given by Venkatesam, J. In that case, my learned brother referred to earlier decisions of the Madras High Court mentioned supra, approved of them and followed them He held that the order concerned in that case was vitiated because the faets in that case were similar to those in Vaidyanaths Ayyer v. Indian Bank Limited Tiruchirapalli and different from the facts concerned in Venkatalingama. v. Narasimha. Contention (b) of Shri Krishna Sarma is not correct on facts of this case. In fact, the Court directed the furnishing of security on 20 1-1962 before admitting the application (E.A. No. 131 of 1962) The petitioner also furnished a draft security bond on 27-1-1962 and only afterwards notice was issued on 13-2-1962 on the petition to the respondent; and notice was also issued on the draft security bond on 22-8-1962. It is no t contended that the draft security bond was accepted finally by the learned Subordinate Judge. The learned Judge had received it along with the endorsement which had been made by the petitioner (judgment debtor) that the would give proof of the value and adequacy of the security if there was denial by the respondents. In fact, after the main petition was posted for hearing, the title to the property coneerned in the security bond was challenged and the judgement-debtor (petitioner) failed, in effect, to substantiate the acceptability. Only after the E.A. was admitted, it was discovered that the security which the petitioner had furnished was not to the satisfection of the Court. Up to that stage, it cannot be laid that the Court had at any time treated the security as being to the satisfaction of the Court finally. The petitioner had undertaken to prove that the security was satisfactory and induced the Court to act on that undertaking. I find that the order of the learned Subordinate Judge in this case, directing the furnishing of security, was one before 'admission' of the application.