APHC011013752017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] THURSDAY ,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2977/2019 Between: Thota Ramaswamy ...PETITIONER AND Mamidi Venkateswara Rao and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P DURGA PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR The Court made the following: 2 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.2977 of 2019 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2977 of 2019 ORDER: The decree holder/auction purchaser filed this civil revision petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. assailing the order dated 23.08.2017 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Avanigadda in E.A.No.106 of 2010 in E.A.No.245 of 2009 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999. 2. Heard arguments of Sri P.Durga Prasad, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri G.Udaya Bhaskar, the learned counsel for respondent No.1. 3. Decree holder is the revision petitioner. Judgment debtors are the respondents. O.S.No.107 of 1999 was tried and disposed of by learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. In execution of the decree E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 was filed by the decree holder. The prayer was to attach the immovable properties of judgment debtors and put them to sale by way of public auction. Ac.1.63 cents of wet land in R.S.No.417/6 situate in Lakshmipuram Village of Challapalli Sub- 3 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.2977 of 2019 Registry belonged to J.Drs. was accordingly attached. They executed warrant of attachment containing the description of boundaries on four sides of the said land. In the auction held D.Hr. became the successful bidder and a sale certificate dated 02.07.2009 was grated to him. It is to be recorded here; the sale was held only for 0.63 cents of land. It seems the sale certificate mentioned the boundaries as that were mentioned in the warrant under which attachment was affected for Ac.1.63 cents of land. After issuance of sale certificate D.Hr. prayed for delivery of possession of the property. The Execution Court ordered for delivery. It was at that time in E.A.No.65 of 2010 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 it granted the services of Mandal Surveyor for earmarking boundaries of the property. When that was done it was realized that the boundaries mentioned in the sale certificate do not match with the ground realities and therefore the warrant for delivery was returned unexecuted. 4. In the context of above undisputed facts, D.Hr. filed E.A.No.106 of 2010 in E.A.No.245 of 2009 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 praying for amendment of boundaries and 4 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.2977 of 2019 he prayed this amendment to be done in his petition whereunder he sought delivery of possession and also in the sale certificate. Notice was ordered to J.Drs. who filed their counter stating that Court had no jurisdiction to grant such relief. After due enquiry by an order dated 23.08.2017 the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Avanigadda dismissed the said petition. That forced the D.Hr. to move the present revision. 5. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that having won the litigation and obtained a decree and having successfully got the property sold and having obtained a sale certificate, D.Hr. is still not in possession of the property he purchased and the J.Drs. are still holding possession of the property and thereby deprived the D.Hr. from enjoying the fruits of the decree. Learned counsel submits that clerical or arithmetical errors could always be corrected in terms of Section 152 C.P.C. and cited a ruling of a learned Judge of this Court in Mamidi Venkateswara Rao v. Bellapu Ranga Rao1. It has to be recorded that the revision petitioner therein is Sri Mamidi 5 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.2977 of 2019 Venkateswara Rao who is respondent No.1/J.Dr.No.1 in this revision also. The cited ruling pertains to another part of immovable property of the very same J.Dr. In the cited ruling application of Section 152 C.P.C. was upheld. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 though contended that the amendment sought could not be entertained by the Execution Court could not cite any principle or ruling to substantiate the contentions raised by J.Dr.No.1. 7. Having considered the rival submissions and the impugned order and the material papers placed before me for consideration, it is to be noticed that it is the help of the Court that was prayed by the D.Hr. for execution of his decree and the Court below effectively executed the decree as it attached the property and sold it in public auction and granted a sale certificate. It goes without saying that the Execution Court is certainly under a legal obligation to deliver what was sold. It is there the ground realities were realized by the parties which disclosed defects in the 1 2024:APHC:33043 order dated 05.09.2024 in C.R.P.No.2530 of 2013 6 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.2977 of 2019 description of the boundaries. It is not a case where the identity of the property or the extent of the property or the ownership of the property are in dispute. The inadvertence is in not properly noticing the boundaries of Ac.0.63 cents that was sold as the sale certificate mentioned the boundaries that were noted by the field assistant for Ac.1.63 cents which was originally attached. In these circumstances the impugned order which failed to grant the needed relief cannot be supported. The boundaries on east which was mentioned as Pasupuleti Chandraiah’s land has to be amended as Mamidi Venkateswara Rao’s land. The boundaries on the west which was mentioned as land of Vepuri Hanumantha Rao has to be amended as land of J.Drs. In the above referred circumstances, the impugned order is set aside. The learned Execution Court shall permit necessary amendment in E.A.No.106 of 2010 as well as in the sale certificate it granted and accordingly E.A.No.106 of 2010 filed by the D.Hr./auction purchaser stand allowed. 8. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 23.08.2017 of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge 7 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.2977 of 2019 at Avanigadda in E.A.No.106 of 2010 in E.A.No.245 of 2009 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 is set aside. The learned Execution Court shall permit necessary amendment in E.A.No.106 of 2010 in E.A.No.245 of 2009 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 as well as in the sale certificate it granted and accordingly E.A.No.106 of 2010 in E.A.No.245 of 2009 in E.P.No.79 of 2003 in O.S.No.107 of 1999 filed by D.Hr./auction purchaser stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR, J Date: 17.04.2025 Ivd 8 Dr. VRKS, J C.R.P.No.2977 of 2019 THE HON’BLE JUSTICE Dr. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2977 of 2019 Date: 17.04.2025 Ivd