ATTALURU RANGA RAO Vs. KATRAGADDA LAKSHMINADHA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision under section 115 Civil Procedure Code by the Court auction purchaser is directed against the decree and judgment passed in I. A. No. 104 of 1977 in A. S. No. 55 of 1975, dated 18th February, 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tenali.

(2.) The petitioner filed E. A. No. 100 of 1975 in E.P. No. 606 of 1969 in O. S. No. 102 of 1932 as the properties purchased by his father in E. P. No. 991 of 1932 in O. S. No. 120 of 1931 were being brought to sale. His father purchased the properties shown in the schedule in E. A. No. 100 of 1975 sold in Court auction on 2nd and 3rd December, 1932 and that sale was confirmed in favour of the father of the petitioner on 29th March, 1933 and the sale certificate also was granted on 26th July, 1933. His father took possession of the property shown in the schedule of E. A. No. 100 of 1975 and continued in possession till he died on 12th August, 1974 and the property devolved upon the petitioner and his brother after his father's death. The decree in O. S. No. 102 of 1932 was sought to be executed against the petitioner and the properties shown in]the schedule of E.A. No. 100 of 1975 for the first time after so many years and the petitioner contended that the very E. P. No. 606 of 1969 was barred by limitation, and that statement was also made in the counter affidavit filed by him in E. P. No. 606 of 1969 that the execution petition was not in-time. It is the case of the petitioner that by in advertance, it was not stated in E. A. No. 100 of 1975 that E. P. No. 606 of 1969 was barred by limitation. Therefore, he filed I.A. No. 104 of 1977 in A. S. No. 55 of 1975 requesting the Court to permit him to amend E.A. No. 100 of 1975 in E. P. No. 606 of 1969 in O. S. No. 102 of 1932 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Repalle by stating that E. P. No. 606 of 1969 in p. S. No. of 102 of 1932 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Repalle, was barred by limitation at the end of paragraph 7 of E. A. No. 100 of 1975. That petition was dismissed by the Court below. Hence this revision.

(3.) The point therefore that arises for consideration is whether the amendment sought for in an interlocutory application pertaining to bar of limitation arising out of the execution petition where the ground of amendment was stated in the counter-affidavit filed in that execution petition itself, can be granted ?