U. Sowri Reddy (Dead)By Lrs vs B. Suseelamma & Ors

U. Sowri Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. .. Appellant

-versus-

B. Suseelamma & Ors. .. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.4.2002 in

C.R.P. No.5939 of 2001 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The facts have been stated in detail in the impugned order and

hence we are not repeating the same here except where necessary.

2 4. One B. Chandrasekhara Reddy, the predecessor of the

respondents herein filed suit no.23 of 1992 before the Subordinate

Judge, Gooty against the appellant herein for recovery of an amount of

Rs.26,720/- being the principal amount and interest due on a pronote

dated 3.4.1991 executed by the appellant herein for Rs.24,000/- payable

with interest at 12% per annum. That suit was decreed ex-parte by the

learned Subordinate Judge, Gooty on 10.2.1995 and the plaintiff-

respondent filed an Execution Petition for realization of the decretal

amount by sale of the immovable property of the appellant. On

15.9.1997 the sale was held in favour of the respondents herein. It is

alleged that the property was worth of Rs.15 lacs but was sold for

Rs.3,15,000/- to realize the decretal amount of Rs.40,364/-.

5. The appellant herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90

C.P.C. to set aside the sale of property. That application was dismissed

by the trial court. A Civil Revision Petition No.1423 of 1998 was filed

by the appellant in the High Court against that order. The High Court

by order dated 10.04.1998 gave an opportunity to the judgment debtor

to pay the decretal amount.

3 6. It is alleged that on 16.4.1998 in pursuance of the High Court

order dated 10.4.1998 the appellant herein deposited the decretal

amount. However, on 22.7.1998 the Executing Court dismissed the

application to set aside the sale of the property in question. Against

that order a Civil Revision was filed and on 9.10.1998 the High Court

allowed the Civil Revision Petition No.3957 of 1998 and remanded the

matter to the trial court for fresh disposal. Thereafter on 2.11.2001 the

application of the appellant was allowed and the sale was set aside with

a direction to the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.18,000/-. That order

has been set aside by the impugned order of the High Court and hence

this appeal.

7. In our opinion the impugned order of the High Court cannot be

sustained. It appears that the High Court ignored the deposit of

Rs.18,000/- on 06.11.2001 in pursuance of order dated 2.11.2001, and

failed to take into account the order dated 11.12.2001 of learned

Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissing the Execution Petition No.17

4

of 1996 and also did not take into consideration the earlier order dated

10.4.1998 in Civil Revision Petition No.3957 of 1998.

8. In our opinion the High Court was not justified in interfering in a

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 C.P.C. when the amount of

Rs. 18,000/- was deposited on 06.11.2001 as per order dated

02.11.2001.

9. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed and the

impugned order of the High Court is set aside.

...................................J.

(Markandey Katju)

...................................J.

(Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi;

April 04, 2011