BERLA RAMESH Vs. V B MARKANDEYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent filed o. S. No. 34 of 1998 in the Court of ii Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, against the 3rd respondent for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed, and after the decree became final, the 2nd respondent filed E. P. No. 172 of 2000. An item of immovable property was attached, and thereafter, brought to sale, on 26. 8. 2002. The 1st respondent emerged as the auction-purchaser, and the sale was confirmed on 7. 11. 2002. The petitioner, who is a third party to the decree, raised an objection for confirmation of sale. According to him, he too filed a suit, in respect of that very property, for specific performance of an agreement of sale against the 3rd respondent, and that the said suit was decreed. He is said to have filed an E. P. , for execution of the sale. It is stated that, at the instance of the, 1st respondent herein, the said E. P. was dismissed.

(2.) THE petitioner filed C. R. P. No. 6018 of 2002 before this Court against the order dated 7. 11. 2002. Ultimately, the CRP was dismissed on 26. 4. 2005. Thereupon, the 1st respondent filed E. A. No. 264 of 2005, under Rule 95 of Order 21 CPC with a prayer to deliver the schedule property to him. Petitioner opposed the application on several grounds. The Executing Court allowed the E. P. , through its order dated 28. 7. 2008. Hence, this CRP.

(3.) SRI P. Keshava Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that when the petitioner raised a serious objection, as to the maintainability of the E. A. , and canvassed on merits, the Executing Court has virtually given a summary disposal to the E. P. He further contends that there is collusion among the respondents, to defeat the rights of the petitioner.