APHC010338532019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3004/2019 Between: 1. MADDALA ANNAPURNA, DIED 2. MADDALA LAKSHMANA KUMARI,, W/O. SOMESWARA RAO, AGED 67 YRS, HINDU, R/O ANDHRA RATNAROAD, NEAR GOPALA KRISHNAYYA PARK, CHIRALA-523155, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. VUTUKURI SUBBARAVAMMA, DIED 2. MUNNALURI PANDURANGA RAO, (DIED) (AUCTION PURCHASER) 3. MAJETI SAMBRAJYAM, W/O. PRASAD, AGED 33 YRS, HINDU, HOUAE WIFE,R/0. REPALLE. 4. MADDALA PRABHAVATHI, W/O. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 30YRS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, SWARNA ROAD, CHIRALA, 5. MANEPALLI RAMA, W/O. RARNAMOHANA RAO, AGED 32 YRS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/O. BATTIPROLU. 6. MUNNALURI BADRI NARAYANA BADRI RAMA NARAYANA, S/O PANDURANGA RAO, AGED 48 YRS, HINDU, R/O.D.N0.23-1-29-30, SANTHA BAZAR, CHIRALA-523155, PRAKASAM DISTRICT. 7. MUNIKONDA HYMAVATHI, W/O. RAGHUNADHA GUPTA, AGED 26YRS, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, SALT BAZAR, TENALI. 2 8. VUTUKURI ESWARA RAO, S/0. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 52YRS, HINDU, EMPLOYEE. AGRICULTURE MARKETING COMMITTEE, CHIRALA 9. VUTUKURI MALLIKARJUNA, S/0. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 50YRS, HINDU, BUSINESS, C/O. DEVI 'ELECT-ONICS, A.R. ROAD, CHIRALA. 10. VUTUKURI OMKARA BABU, S/0. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 46YRS, HINDU, ADVOCATE, RIO. PERALA. RESPONDENT NO.8 TO 10 ARE ADDED AS LR'S OF DECEASED 1ST RESPONDENT /DHR AS PER ORDERS IN IA NO.203 OF 2007 DATED 07.03.2008. 11. NATUKULA SEERISHA, D/O. BOLISETTY VENKATA SUBBARAO, S/0. SUBBARAYUDU, AGED 24YRS.HINDU R/O. FLAT NO. 8, DALPHIN-II APARTMENT, JPK GUDAPARK, SNTOSH REDDY NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 12. BOLISETTY DEEPTHI, D/O. VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED 23YRS,HINDU R/O. FLAT NO. 8, DALPHIN-II APARTMENT, JPK GUDAPARK, SNTOSH REDDY NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 13. BOLISETTY GANGADHAR, S/0. VENKATA SUBBARAO, AGED 22YRS., HINDU R/O. FLAT NO. 8, DALPHIN-II APARTMENT, JPK GUDAPARK, SNTOSH REDDY NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 14. C KOTAISH KALYANI, W/O , MURALI KRISHNA, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE R/O.D.NO.20/15, NARASIMHA NAGAR, MACHILIPATNAM. 15. DEVISETTY ESWARAMMA SUNEETHA, W/O. RAMESH BABU, HINDU, HOUSE WIFE, R/O.D.NO10-32-7C/4, SRI NILAYAM COOPERATIVE COLONY, E3OLINENI LABORATORYM KAVALI, ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased tothis Memorandum of Civil Revision Petition against the Order dated 17-08-2019 passed in E.A. No. 340/2014 in E.P. No.43/1981in O.S. No.276/1969 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Cheerala, Prakasam Dist. IA NO: 1 OF 2019 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased 3 pleased to stay of all further proceeding in E.P:43 of 1981 in OS.No:276 of 1969 on the file of the Court of Learned Senior Civil Judge, Chirala and to receive main Civil Revision Petition on file in the interests of Justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. MANGENA SREE RAMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. M CHALAPATI RAO 4 The Court made the following ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 17.08.2019 passed in E.A.No.340 of 2014 in E.A.No.186 of 1988 in E.A.No.283 of 1981 in E.P.No.43 of 1981 in O.S.No.276 of 1969 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chirala, whereby, the petition filed, seeking acceptance of third party security, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioners herein are the judgement debtors in the suit and the respondent No.1 herein is the decree holder in the suit i.e., O.S.No.276 of 1969, before the Court below. The suit filed plaintiff in O.S.No.276 of 1969 was decreed against the judgment debtors. In execution, the E.P. schedule property was brought to sale on 19.06.1972 and the sale was confirmed on 01.06.1973 and the delivery of possession was also effected in favour of the auction purchaser. Subsequently, the judgment debtor No.1 filed a petition before this Court, to set- aside the sale and this Court passed an order directing to furnish security in case the property was resold or fetches lesser amount. Later, as the judgment debtor No.1 was died, judgment debtor No.2 i.e., petitioner No.2 was impleaded as party to the suit. Then, it is submitted that, the security of Sriram Jagapati was filed and he died. Thereafter, his son Sriram Purnachandra Rao filed security bond and he also died, subsequently. Ultimately, the judgment debtor No.2 filed the application in E.A.No.340 of 2014, seeking acceptance of the security bond of her husband one Maddala Someswara Rao, stating that her husband owned a building at Chirala, which is worth more than 10 lakhs and he also possessed various 5 properties worth more than 25 lakhs and there are no mortagages, charges or encumbrances over the property offered as security and he has got absolute right and possession of the property. The Court below dismissed the said application holding that the sale set-aside petition was dismissed long back and not restored and that the sale was confirmed and possession was delivered and that the proposed security was insufficient in view of the value of the property at that time. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is preferred by the judgment debtor No.2. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the order of the Court below is illegal and suffers from material irregularity. The Court below wrongly relied upon admissions of P.W.1 in cross-examination. The decree holder failed to establish his case by cogent evidence. He also submits that the Court below failed to consider that in compliance with the earlier order passed by this Court dated 20.12.1972 in C.R.P.No.1777 of 1972, the revision petitioner has deposited the decreetal amount. He also submits that proper opportunity was not given to adduce the evidence and the petition ought to have been allowed, as the security offered was supported by documentary evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents contends that the judgment debtor No.2 filed E.A.No.340 of 2014 belatedly to prolong the matter. He submits that the 6th respondent is the lawful successor of the auction purchaser and that he is possession and enjoyment of the E.P. schedule property from the initial delivery of the said subject property. He further submits that the security offered by the judgment debtor No.2, is her husband and the same is not sufficient to the satisfaction of the market value of the E.P. amount and hence, prayed to dismiss this revision petition. 6 6. On perusal of the impugned order clearly shows that the E.P. schedule property was sold in the auction held on 19.06.1972, by following due procedure and the possession of the property was also delivered to the auction purchaser and after his death, his successor has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. It also clearly establishes that the judgment debtor filed an E.A. in the year 1972, seeking to set-aside the auction dated 19.06.1972 and the said petition came to be dismissed on 01.06.1973 and the said petition was never restored. The Court below has rightly hold that in the absence of a subsisting and validly pending application to set aside the sale, the question of accepting third party security does not arise. It also held rightly that, in view of the dismissal of the sale set-aside petition, subsequent applications seeking similar relief are not maintainable. 7. Therefore, there is no legal flaw or infirmity in the impugned order of the Court below warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. _________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J Dated: 30.12.2025 RMD 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3004/2019 Dated: 30.12.2025 RMD