B. Balaraju vs S.Shiva Kanya

This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the orders in E.P. No. 66 of 2018 in OS No. 1893 of 2014, Dated 25.10.2021 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

The docket orders of the Court below are hereunder:

02-08-2021

“Heard the petitioner. Issue sale proclamation against Judgment Debtor by publishing in ‘NAVA Telangana’ Telugu daily news paper that sale will be conducted by 30.09.2021. For conduction of sale 30-09-2021. For publication 16-09-2021. For report, 18-10-2021. Call on 18-10-2021”.

25-10-2021

“Process resubmitted. After gone through the entire record the Court feels that 3 months period is completed. Hence, it is required to issue fresh publication for sale. Issue sale proclamation against the Judgment Debtor by publication in ‘Surya’ Daily Newspaper and intimate the sale will be conducted by 27-12-2021. For conducting of sale, for publication 06-12-2021. For report call on 30-12-2021”.

27-12-2021

“Sale conducted in open Court. Sale knock down for Rs.27,40,000/-. For report, call on 30-12-2021”.

30-12-2021

“Sale conducted. Report filed. For payment of sale consideration. Call on 20-01-2022”.

The petitioner herein contended that sale was conducted without following the provisions of Order 21 Rule 64 of CPC. The executing Order ought to restrict the sale to such portion of suit schedule property which may satisfy the decretal amount. The suit claim was only for Rs.3,00,000/- and it was decreed wrongly for an amount of Rs.6,68,500/-. The sale consideration was concluded at Rs.27,40,000/-. The petitioner further stated that he offered to pay the amount through legal notice but the respondent suppressed the same and filed only a copy of unserved reply notice and requests this Court to set aside the order of the trial Court.

O.S. No. 1893 of 2014 is filed for recovery of 6,68,500/-. Suit was decreed on 24.10.2014 directing the defendant to pay the same with subsequent interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount from the date of suit till the date of decree and thereafter at 6% per annum on the principal amount from the date of decree till the date of realisation. E.P. was filed for recovery of the same and to attach the immovable property of the J.Dr. In fact the petitioner herein obtained loan by mortgaging the 3rd floor of his house. As such the suit schedule property was attached, notices were served upon the petitioner herein during the E.P. proceedings through his wife and his son. Therefore, his contention that he has no knowledge about the E.P. is not tenable. In fact, he himself executed mortgage deed on 24.03.2011 in favour of the plaintiff in the suit on receipt of Rs.3,00,000/- in which it was agreed that the said amount has to be paid within ten months. When he failed to pay the same plaintiff filed the suit and it was decreed in her favour. He filed I.A. No. 611 of 2018 to set aside the ex parte order to condone the delay of 228 days. The said I.A. was dismissed on 04.02.2019. Later the property mortgaged by him was attached. Plaintiff herself purchased the property on payment of entire auction amount.

Perusal of the record shows that he also paid another Rs.10,00,000/-. Legal notice was issued by the plaintiff on 18.11.2013 before filing of the case. Though the petitioner stated that he paid the entire amount along with reply notice, the said reply notice is not filed in the Court and he has not filed any proof regarding the payment of the said amount. As such at this stage, his contention cannot be accepted, the revision petition is devoid of merits and is to be dismissed.

In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed by confirming the orders in E.P. No. 66 of 2018 in OS No. 1893 of 2014, Dated 25.10.2021 on the file of the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs.