APHC010159322024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Tuesday, the Eighteenth day of February Two Thousand and Twenty Five Present The Honourable Ms Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 762 of 2024 Between: K Rajasekhar ...petitioner and Segu Venkata Naga Pullaiah and others ...respondent(s) Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Narasimha Rao Gudiseva Counsel for the respondent(s): 1. M Balasubrahmanyam The Court made the following: 2 C.R.P. No.762 of 2024 Order: This revision petition is filed under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 01.03.2024 dismissed petition in E.A. No.168 of 2023 in E.P. No.59 of 2017 in O.S.No.01 of 2013, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allagadda, filed by the judgment debtor No.3, under Section 151 CPC to permit the petitioner to deposit the amount of sale consideration for which the 5th respondent purchased the property and also the amount of the poundage and suit costs. 02. It is the contention of the petitioner that the 1st respondent/D.Hr got his property sold in execution by playing fraud and the 5th respondent purchased the property in the auction and the confirmation of sale is yet to be ordered. The petitioner claimed that he had no knowledge about the suit and the execution petition. He filed two petitions viz., one under Order XXI, rule 26 and Section 151 CPC and another petitioner under Order XXI, rule 106(2) and Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The petitions are pending. The petitioner has good grounds to succeed in the suit and the execution, however he is ready and willing to amicably settle the dispute with the respondents by depositing the amount of sale price and the poundage charges, along with the suit costs. 03. The petition was opposed by filing the counter-affidavit of the 1st respondent/D.Hr, denying the averments in the petition and further contending that the family members of the petitioner are aware of the suit and the execution proceedings and therefore, his mother by name K. Rathna Kumari appeared in the execution proceedings and filed application and sought one day time for making payment of the E.P. amount, but as the amount was not so paid, the same was sold in an auction with high competition among the bidders. It is further contended that a petition to set aside the same on 3 C.R.P. No.762 of 2024 deposit of amount is envisaged under Order XXI, rule 89 CPC within 30 days and the period for making application under Order XXI, rule 90 CPC is 60 days and therefore, the petitioner cannot plead now, after three years, to permit him to deposit the amount. 04. Aggrieved by the order dismissing the petition, this revision petition has been filed. 05. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned counsel who is appearing for both the 1st respondent/D.Hr and the 5th respondent/ auction purchaser. 06. As can be seen from the impugned order, no opportunity was given to the 5th respondent/ auction purchaser who is the person directly affected by the order, if any, passed in favour of the petitioner. In the impugned order, it is mentioned that the counsel for the petitioner/J.Dr No.3 and the learned counsel for the respondents were heard. But, it is the 1st respondent/D.Hr alone who filed the counter-affidavit. Obviously, the auction purchaser had no advocate to represent him. No separate notice on this petition was ordered, nor was served on the 5th respondent. That is how, the party is likely to be affected by the relief sought in the petition has not been heard, though he is a necessary party, whereas D.Hr is not likely to be affected as the decree can be satisfied either with the amount of sale consideration or the amount offered to be deposited by the petitioner/J.Dr No.3. As such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone without going into the other merits. 07. The learned counsel for the petitioner requested this Court to protect the interest of the revision petitioner from the further steps in execution pending hearing of the petition E.A. No.168 of 2023 afresh by the execution Court. 4 C.R.P. No.762 of 2024 08. In the result, the revision petition is allowed and the order dated 01.03.2024 in E.A. No.168 of 2023 in E.P. No.59 of 2017 in O.S.No.1 of 2013, on the file of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allagadda, is set aside with a direction to the Execution Court, before proceeding with further steps in execution, to give an opportunity to the 5th respondent to file counter-affidavit and then pass order afresh by hearing all the parties who contest. The 5th respondent is given liberty to file counter-affidavit within one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and no separate notice on the petition to the 5th respondent is required. On filing the counter-affidavit by the 5th respondent, if he chooses to file, the petition shall be expeditiously disposed, not later than one (01) month thereafter. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J Date: 18.02.2025 SCH 5 C.R.P. No.762 of 2024 246 HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.762 of 2024 Date: 18.02.2025 SCH