IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT the HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 588 DF 909^ AT AMARAVATI AND aVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO; HQ qf 2Q2fi WIL REVISION PETITION NO- 588 OF 2n?fi- APHC010057392025 Petition under Section 115 of CPC stated in the grounds filed herein the Order dated 31.12.2024 | 2019 in O.S.No.370 of 2015 Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. Between: praying that in the circumstances the High Court may be pleased to set aside passed in E.A.No.38 of 2024 in E.P.No.32 of on the file of the Senior Civil Judge Boddula Siva Surya Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Late Appala Narasayya, aged about 54 years, R/o.Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram Mandal Vizianagaram District. ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. Koppisetti Veerababu, S/o.Venkateswarlu, aged 54 years, R/o.D/o.1- 164, Penuguduru, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. Vasamsetty Sri Siva Kumar, S/o.Venkateswarlu aged 42 years R/o.D/0.6-104, Gorripudi, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2Q2fi 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 to stay all further proceedings including the issuance of sale certificate to the respondents in E.P.No.32 of 2019 in O.S.No.370 of 2015 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, pending disposal of above CRP. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondents : SRI V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO ^VIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO: 110 OF 2025! APHC010057382025 0? Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (j) of CPC may be pleased to set aside the Order dated 31.12.2024 passed in E.A.No.39 of 2024 in E.P.No.32 of 2019 Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District praying that the High Court in O.S.No.370 of 2015 on the file of the Senior , Between; Boddula Siva Surya Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Late aged about 54 years, R/o.Dwarapudi Village, Vizianagaram Mandal Vizianagaram District. Appala Narasayya ...APPELLANT/PETITIONER AND 1. Koppisetti Veerababu, S/o.Venkateswarlu 164, Penuguduru, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari District. 2. Vasamsetty Sri Siva Kumar, S/o.Venkateswarlu, R/o.D/o.6-104, Gorripudi, Karapa Mandal, East Godavari aged 54 years, R/o.D/o.1- aged 42 years. District. ...RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS lA NO; 1 OF 2n9fi Petition under Order 41 Rule (5) CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings including certificate to the respondents in E.P.No.32 of 2019 in O.S.No.370 of 2015 the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram CMA. Counsel for the Appellant the issuance of sale on pending disposal of above : SRI SHAIK MOHAMMED ISMAIL Counsel for the Respondents : SRI V.V.N.NARAYANA RAO The Court made the following COMMON ORDER : / 1 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI C.R.P.No.588 of 2025 & C.M.A.No.110 of 2025 COMMON ORDER: Challenging the independent orders dated 31.12.2024 passed in E.A.Nos.38 of 2024 and 39 of 2024 in E.P.No.32 of 2019 in Original Suit No.370 of 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, the present Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal have been filed respectively. As the parties to the matters are the same and they relate to same suit, this Court deems it appropriate to dispose of these Writ Petitions by way of this Common Order. The petitioner in the Civil Revision Petition and the appeallant in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is the judgment debtor. The respondents in the Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are the Decree Holders. 2. 3. The respondents/decree holders/plaintiffs filed suit vide O.S.No.370 of 2015 on the file of the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada against the petitioner/judgment debtor/defendant for recovery of money. Along with the suit, respondents/plaintiffs filed an application vide I.A.No.348 of 2015 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC for attachment of Plaint Schedule Property before judgement. The said 4. 2 application was allowed. The suit was deceed vide decree and judgment dated 23.10.2017. Pursuant to the said decree and Judgment, as the property situated in Vijayanagaram, an Execution petition vide E.P.No.32 of 2019 was filed on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vijayanagaram. In the said E.P., the petitioner, who is the Judgment Debtor, was set ex parte and in the meantime, the property was brought to auction for realizing the amount under the said decree and judgmenet. After proclamation of sale the petitioner/judgment debtor filed l.A.Nos.38 of 2024 and 39 of 2024 for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 28.01.2020 and also for setting aside the sale conducted on 06.02.2024. The said applications were dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the said orders, the present Civil Revision Petition and Civil Miscellaneous Appeal have been filed on the ground that the petitioner, who is the judgment debtor, was unaware that he had been set ex parte in the execution proceedings and that the sale was conducted pursuant to the fraud allegedly played by the respondents, who are the decree holders. Heard Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, learned counsel for the 5. petitioner and SriV.V.N.Narayanarao, learned counsel for the respondents. / 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in elaboration to what has been stated in the grounds of Revision and Appeal, contended that the petitioner was set ex parte in the execution proceedings. During the COVID period, his counsel passed away and the petitioner himself fell ill, due to which he could not pursue the matter with his counsel. After sale proclamation only, the petitioner came to know that he was set ex parte and accordingly he filed applications to set aside the ex parte decree as well as sale. He further submitted that respondent No.1/ Decree holder himself stood as highest bidder for an amount of Rs.21,30,000/- by placing the valuation report showing the property as agricultural land, whereas the value of the property is more than two Crores. In fact the said property was converted from agricultural land to non-agriculatural land wayback in the year 2012. He further submitted that despite placing the valuation report, the Court below did not consider the same while adjudicating the issue and erroneously dismissed the applications. The D.Hrs played fraud and knocked away the property for meagre amount by suppressing the true value of the property. Hence, prayed to allow the Civil Revision Petition as well as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. On the other hand, Sri V.V.Narayanarao, learned counsel for the respondents contended that though it was alleged that fraud was 7. 4 played, the judgment debtor did not place any material or documentary evidence on record in support of his pleadings. Order VI rule 4 CPC mandates that in cases involving allegations of fraud misrepresentation, or undue influence, the pleadings must contain full particulars, and such allegations must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence. In fact, the parties did not enter into the witness box and in the absence of proper pleadings and evidence particularly the material to show that fraud had taken place, the Court cannot come to his rescue. In the present case, the petitioner neither plead nor proved that there was fraud. He further submits that while seeking to set aside the ex parte order, the petitioner is required to show bona fide reasons and satisfactorily explain the reasons as to why application has been filed at a belated stage. The Court below has rightly dealt with the applications and there are no valid and justifiable grounds raised before this Court warranting interference of this Court either in the Revision Petition or in the Appeal, as such they are liable to be dismissed. Perused the record and considered the submissions made by 8. learned counsel for the parties. It is not in dispute that suit for recovery of money vide O.S.370 of 9. 2015 on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram was 5 % decreed and has attained finality. It is also a fact that the petitionerhas engaged a counsel before the Executing Court. The petitioner was set ex parte on 28.01.2020 in Execution proceedings and subsequently filed an application under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC to set aside the ex parte order. 10. Perusal of the affidavit filed before the Court below in support of the applications reveals that the petitioner has not explained, the reasons properly for not filing the applications within the period of limitation. The affidavits are vague and bereft of satisfactory and no documents are filed in both interlocutory applications in support of his claim. In the absence of proper pleadings and material evidence, particularly in the case of fraud, the petitioner cannot find fault with the order of the Court below. Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with setting aside sale of immovable property in execution of a decree, specifically on the grounds of material irregularity or fraud in publishing or conducting the sale. It allows affected parties, like the judgment debtor, decree-holder, or other entitled persons, to approach the Court to set aside the sale. However, the applicant must prove not only the irregularity or fraud, but also that they suffered substantial injury due to it. reasons I \\ 6 11. Order VI Rule 4 of CPC reads as follows: 4. Particulars to be given where necessary.—In all cases in which the party pleading relies on any misrepresentation, fraud, breach of trust, wilful default, or undue influence, and in all other cases in which particulars may be necessary beyond such as are exemplified in the forms aforesaid, particulars (with dates and items if necessary) shall be stated in the pleading. In the present case, the petitioner failed to meet the said requirements. The Court below has rightly observed that the petitioner has failed to place documentary evidence in support of his claim. In the said circumstances, this Court cannot find fault with the impugned order. The Court below has righity dealt the applications and dismissed the same. The petitioner has not raised any valid grounds warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal are dismissed. There shall be no order as to 12. costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. SDI- K.TATA RAO DEPUTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vizianagaram, Vizianagaram District. (With records) * 2. One CC to Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri V.V.N.Narayana Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of AP at Amaravati. 5. Two CD Copies BSV TAC I; ■ • ! i[ m! i' ■!' ' : i ; HIGH COURT DATED:18/07/2025 COMMON ORDER CRP NO. 588 OF 2025 AND \ 17 SfP PIPS ^ ^ Current Section ^ CMA NO. 110 OF 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP AND CMA WITHOUT COSTS