APHC010144482025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Thursday, the Thirty First Day of July Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms.Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 775 of 2025 Between: Muraboina Rama Lakshaumma ...Petitioner and Mekala Srinivasulu @ Sree Ramulu and others ...Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: 1. S.V.Ruthvik Counsel for the respondents: 1. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P.No.775 of 2025 Order: This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order dated 03.03.2025 dismissing the petition in E.A.No.19 of 2025 in E.P.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.342 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allagadda filed by the J.Dr. under Section 151 of C.P.C. to permit her to deposit the entire decreetal amount along with interest and costs before confirmation of sale and set aside the auction sale conducted on 06.04.2022. 2. The petitioner / J.Dr. stated in the petition that sale in auction was held on 06.04.2022 and the execution proceedings are pending for confirmation of the sale and that she was unable to deposit the amount due because of her serious ill-health and financial hardship and thus, she could not deposit the amount within the period mentioned under Order XXI, Rule 89 of C.P.C. and as she regained her health and is able to secure the necessary funds, she is willing to deposit the entire decreetal amount along with interests. It is further contended that when extra-ordinary situations such as illness or financial incapacity have prevented compliance with procedural timelines an opportunity can be given to the J.Dr. to deposit the amount by exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of C.P.C. 2. D.Hr. reported no counter, however, contended that the petition is not maintainable, as it was not filed within the prescribed period of limitation. No notice was given to the respondent No.2 / auction purchaser and the petition was disposed after hearing the petitioner / J.Dr. and the respondent No.1 / D.Hr. The petition was 3 C.R.P.No.775 of 2025 dismissed by the execution Court on the ground that the petition shall be filed within sixty days, however it was filed belatedly after two years, nine months and thirty days. Though certain decisions were referred to in the petition itself that under certain circumstances, even beyond the period of sixty days J.Dr. can be permitted to deposit the amount, no discussion was made by the execution Court on that aspect. 3. Aggrieved by the order, this revision petition was filed re- iterating the petition contents and also further stating that the amount releasable under decree is Rs.3,93,736/- but the property was sold for Rs.12,80,000/- which is disproportionate to the decreetal amount and thus, there is violation of principles of fairness and equity in execution proceedings. It is also contended that the market value of the property exceeds Rs.20,00,000/- per acre, but the property of Ac.3.11 cents fetches value about Rs.65,00,000/- was sold at low price which is grossly inadequate. 4. Though the auction purchaser was not heard as can been understood from the impugned order passed by the execution Court, the auction purchaser appeared before this Court along with the D.Hr., both being represented by the same counsel. First of all, since no notice was served on the petition to the purchaser of the property, the contentions cannot be appreciated. Secondly, the aspect whether J.Dr. can be permitted to deposit the amount under any exceptional circumstances was not discussed. Similarly, there is no examination of the aspects whether the J.Dr. could make out any such exceptional circumstances. 4 C.R.P.No.775 of 2025 5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner referred to the decisions which were cited in the affidavit in E.A. No.19 of 2025. 6. Though no notice was served on the auction purchaser before the execution Court, on receipt of notice in the revision petition, the auction purchaser also made appearance before this Court and he is represented by the same counsel who is appearing for D.Hr. The learned counsel for the respondents herein (D.Hr. and Auction Purchaser) submitted that the execution Court decided that the petition is not maintainable beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Order XXI, Rule 89 C.P.C. and therefore, the J.Dr. cannot maintain the petition and the observation of the execution Court does not require any interference. 7. Since the respondent No.2 / auction purchaser was not given notice and opportunity to contest the petition in E.A.No.19 of 2025, though the relief sought therein directly defeats the interest of the auction purchaser in the event of granting it, merely because the auction purchaser appeared before this Court, without there being any observation of the execution Court in the presence of the auction purchaser, this Court is not inclined to examine the question of limitation for the first time in revision as against the auction purchaser as well, because of supervisory jurisdiction exercised in revision petition. Therefore, it is a matter fit to be remanded for fresh adjudication after giving the auction purchaser an opportunity of contesting the petition on merits. In view of appearance of auction purchaser before this Court, no further notice on the petition before the execution Court is required. 5 C.R.P.No.775 of 2025 8. It is pertinent to mention that pending the hearing of the revision petition, since it was represented that attempts were made to settle the issue through negotiations, the matter has been referred to the mediation centre in the High Court. But, the record has been sent back as the matter could not be settled. 9. In the result, the revision petition is disposed of setting aside the order dated 03.03.2025 in E.A.No.19 of 2025 in E.P.No.3 of 2019 in O.S.No.342 of 2017 on the file of the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allagadda, with a direction to the execution Court to give the respondent No.2 / auction purchaser opportunity to file a counter within the time fixed by and then, after providing opportunity of hearing to all the parties, pass an order afresh on merits as early as possible, not later than four (4) months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Date: 31.07.2025 RSD 6 C.R.P.No.775 of 2025 104 The Honourable Ms Justice B S Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 775 of 2025 Date: 31.07.2025 RSD