Allowed

Chepuri Sathyanarayana, v. Thanda Peda Saida Saheb

Telangana HC27 Apr 2010CRP/1803/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the civil revision petition, quashing the impugned order that rejected a third-party application under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. The Court directed the lower court to process and dispose of the application on merits after notice to both sides.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 01-4-2009 set aside; application to set aside sale to be processed on merits after notice to both sides.

Chepuri Sathyanarayana, Vs Thanda Peda Saida Saheb — Execution and Attachment | Telangana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD

¶2

MONDAY, THE TWENTYSEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND TEN

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶5

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 8 0 3 of 2009

¶6

Between :

¶7

Chepuri Satyanarayana … Revision Petitioner

¶8

V/s.

¶9

Thanda Peda Saida Saheb & Anr. … Respondents

¶10

Counsel for the Revision Petitioner: Sri P. Prabhakara Rao

¶11

Counsel for the Respondents : Sri B. Venumadhav

¶12

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶13

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 8 0 3 OF 2009

¶14

O R D E R :

¶15

Aggrieved of the order dated 01-4-2009 passed in EA.No. of 2009 in EP.No. 3 of 2006 in OS.No. 37 of 2004 by the Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala, rejecting the application filed under Order 21, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking to set aside the sale held on 11-12-2008 in the above E.P., the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

¶16

2. The main contention of the revision petitioner is that the court below committed jurisdictional error in rejecting his application without numbering and hearing on merits and also observing about the deposit of the money in the petition filed under Order-21, Rule 90 of CPC. It is also contended that the petition by a third party is maintainable under Order-21, Rule-90 of CPC when it is the case of the petitioner that there is fraud in publication and conducting of the sale. Further it is argued that there is fraud in not mentioning correct boundaries, survey numbers and the judgment debtor value besides other fraudulent acts.

¶17

3. Heard both sides.

¶18

4. The court below without numbering the application of the petitioner rejected the same on the ground that such application is not maintainable.

¶19

5. Having heard the counsel and on perusing the material available on record, it is felt desirable that application of this nature should be processed by considering the objections on merits and the same shall be disposed of on merits but it cannot be thrown out at the threshold.

¶20

6. In the facts and circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 01-4-2009 passed in EA.No. of 2009 in EP.No.3 of 2006 in OS.No.37 of 2004 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala, be and is hereby set aside and the court

¶21

below is directed to process the application of the Revision Petitioner and dispose of the same after giving notice to both sides.

¶22

7. With the above direction, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

___________________________ JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶24

27-04-2010. I s L

¶25

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO

¶26

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1 8 0 3 OF 2009

¶27

CIRCULATION ENTRY No. 194 Date: 27-04-2010 Court Master : I s L Computer No. 43

Chepuri Sathyanarayana, v. Thanda Peda Saida Saheb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chepuri Sathyanarayana, v. Thanda Peda Saida Saheb

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lukka Lakshmi Narasimha Rao Vs Lukka Venkata Siva Jyothi

Badam Chennamma Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Jonna Somaiah Vs Karanam Chandra Sekhar

Gudipudi Chinna (died) Vs Mohammad Khaleel

Kanikicherla Suryaprakasa Rao (Died) Vs Gadamsetti Venkateswarlu

Malepati Tirupathi Reddy, Vs M/s Sundaram Finance Ltd, No. 21 Patullos Road