Common order disposing of Civil Revision Petitions challenging auction proceedings regarding sale of mortgaged land, relying on a prior order from the same court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
WEDNESDAY ,THE THIRD DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TWO
PRESENT
THE HONOURAALE SMT JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1o87 & 1094 OF 2020
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1087 OF 2020
Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the docket order dated 0211112019 in E.A.(SR) No.215212019 in E.P. No. 83 of 2015 in O.S. No. 235 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet.
Between:
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of Sole Petitioner as per Court Order dated 1 7-06-2022 in l.XNo.1l2O22
..PETITIONERy PETITIONERyJDR/DEFENDANT No.2
AND
T"..p.o|ldq{ !^o^3^prgugh!on record as LR of Sote petitioneras per Court Order dated 17-06-2022 in 1.A.No.112022
...RESPONDENTSi RESPONDENTS
lA NO: 2 OF 2022
Between :
Venna Bharath Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, Rl/o Kesaram village of Suryapet [,1andal, Suryapet District.
...VACATE PETITTONER/RESpONDENT No.2 in C.R.p
AND
...RESpONDENT No. 1/DHR
Petition under Section 151 cpc praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the peiition, Ine uign court may oe pteaseJ io vacate the interim orders dared 22.06.2o22 passed in cRp trto.toaz "i zozo rno dismiss the CRP No.1O87 of ZO2O with exemplary costs.
Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl. A VEERASWAMY
Counsel for the Respondent No.1 :SRl. V DYUMANI
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl. V.MURALI MANOHAR
// , // (
ctvtl- REVtstoNpETtloN No: 1094 oF 2ozo
Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of lndia, aggrieved by the docket order dated 0211112019 in E.A (SR) No.215212019 in E.P. No. 83 of 2015 in O.S. No. 235 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Suryapet.
Between:
Petitioner Nos. 2 to 4 brought on record as LRs of Sole Petitioner as per Court Order dated'l 7{6-2022 in l. A.No. 1 I 2022
...PETITIONER/ PETITIONERyJDR/DEFENDANT No.2
AND
ltespgndentNo,3 brought on record as LR of Sole Petitioneras per Court Order dated I 7-06-2022 in l.A.No.l /2022
...RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDBNTS
/
// IA NO: 2 Olt 2022
Between:
Venna Bharath Reddy, S/o Chandra Reddy, R/o Kesaram village ofSuryapct Mandal, Suryapet District.
. .VACATE PIi'I'ITIONFIR/RESPONDENT No.2 in C.R.P
AND
2.Smt-G.Rajcswari W/o. Keshav Rao aged about 56 years, Occ:Service R/o. Flat \q,!01,Dwaraka Nagar,(Near) Nalanda Junior College(60feet Road),Suryapet- 50821 3,
3-Smt. Jalagam lndumathi, W/o. J.Venkataramana, aged about 51 years, Occ.Service R/o. i-8-i0/4, Suryapet-5ffi2i 3.
...RESPONDENT No. 1/DHR
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 vacate the inlerim orders dated 1710612022 passed in CRp No.1094 ot ZO2O and dismiss the CRP.No.1094 ot 2O2O with exemplary costs.
Counsel for the Petitioners :SRl. A VEERASWAMY
Counsel for the Respondent No.l : SRl. V DYUMANI
Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRl. V.MURALI MANOHAR
The Court made the fotlowing: ORDER
1i
I
|'
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTTCE P.SREE SUDHA
CIVIL REVISIOIN PETITION No. 1087 0F 2020
&
CIVIL REVISIOIN PETIT ION No.1094 OF 2O2O
COMMON ORDER:
The issue raised in these two civil Revision petitions is squarely covered by the order rendered in civil Revisionpetition No. 1080 of 2020 dt.o2.og.20zz.
Hence, these two civil Revisionpetitions are disposed of in terms of the
Order passed by this Court in Civil Revision petition No.l080 of 2020.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending sha[[ stand closed.
I
Sd/.T.KRISHNAKUMAR DEPUTY REGISTRAR
//TRUE COPY//
SEcfSN oFFICER
To,
CDL
$gtufongwith a ordercopy crp1080 of 2020 dr :02'08 2022)
<br>
HIGH COURT
DATED:0310812022
COMMON ORDER
CRP.No.1087& 1094 ot 2020
a. lHa Si4 14:
1
-
0 3 t[1] 2fit1
//'
1)
DISMISSINC THE C.R.P
NO COSTS.
6
THI'- I{ON'Bl-E S\l l. .lt STlClE P. Sltl.-E St l)lIA
CIVIL REVISIOIN PETITION No.l080 OF 2020
ORDER:
l. The Civil Revision Petition No. 1080 of 2020 is filed against the rejection of the trial Court in dockct order dt.02. I 1.2019 in t.A. (SR) No.2l52 of 2019 in E.P. No. 83 ol20l5 in which it was stated as lollows:
PSS.J CRP No. 1080 of 2020
iusticecaused by vimreof auction sale dt.01.04.2019rvhichrvas conlirmed on 03-06.2019. The trialCourtfailed to observe that first respondent bank alier obtaining the decree, filedE.P.Duringpendency ol'[:.t'.. the Bank oftLred one timesettlementfor Rs.4.00'000/-.out of u,hich one of the Judgment Debtors paid Rs.1,00,000/-but his property was soltl witlrout nolice to.iu rgment debtors.
-i.l He turther stateti that as per Order XXIRule 64 ofCode olCivil Procedure. thc fixccuting Court should sell only suchpropett]' ora nonion thereof asnecessaryto Mtisl,the decree and this is obligatory and notjust discretion of the Courl. Butthe trialCourt sold jointfhmil)' property to an extenl ofAc.i3-29 gts., whichis a fertile landunder Sree Ram Sagar Pro.ioct watcr a.rd it was being soldui Rr.zo.o0.o00l-,o Its.25.00,000/- per acre nnd the tolalvalue oftheproperty would bc more than l{s.2,50.00,000/- and a small portion oflessthanan acrervould have bcen sullicient to satis{y the balance of the entire decretalamount.He also stated tl.rat there are two different schedule(Schedule2 A. 3) properties in the Il.P. in diflerent survey numbers in two differentvillagcs as pcr the pattedar passbc,r;ks and Adangals. Theprincipaldebtor Yaragani Venkatanarsaiah is having Ac.4-00 gts., in Tummalapcnpahad village as shorvn in Schedule-l and also evident from thepattedar passbooks and Adangals to an extent of Ac.t-01 gts., in schedule-[ll in
PSS.J CRP No 1080 of 2020
Nasimpeta village and the said property itsell is sufficient to satisfy the entire decree in full, but the trial Coufi ered in selling entirc property contrary to Order XXI Rule 64 of Code ol Civil Procedure. His mortgaged property was undervalued and brought to sale by playing fraud in collusion between the respondents herein lor huge extent ol Ac.l3-29 gts., when the bank came forward for one time settlementand balance was only. Rs.3,00,000/- to be pa;d. The saidproperty was partitioned between the present petitioner (father) and his daughter by virtue ol family settlement and theprincipal debtor his son.who bonowed money from plaintiff bankis having onlyan extent ofAc.4-00 gts., and pattedar passbook was also issued under Records ol Rights Act in his name about four decades back and since then he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and tl.e samewas mortgaged to {he Bank for obtaining loan for purchasing a Tractor. andthat the present petitioner is only a guarantor, but the trial Courtwithout decidingoi thc issues, returned all the applications atSR stage.No notices tvere scr.r,'cd upon either in the suit or in the E.P.and thus, requested the Court to s€t aside the order.
3.2 I'Ie further stated thatO.S.No. 235 ol -r,12is filed by AndhraBank Branch Manager against YarganiVenkata Narsaiah.Yargani Yagaiahand Jalagam Venkat Ramana fbr recovery ofRs.9,38-981/-rvith interest.
I PSS,J CRP No. I08O of 2O2O
Delendants No.l and 2 mortgaged their agricultural land which was in Sy.No.536 to an extent Ac.a-00 gls., situated at Tummalapahad Village, Atmakur( S ) Mandal bel..^rging to defendants No.l and 2 and the petitioners (daughtcrs) herein created equitable mortgage lor two nroperties i.e. egricultural lands bcaring Sy.Nos.536, 613, 533, 534, 535 total cxtcnt Ac.8-18 gts.. and agricultural land bearing Sy.No.i3liAl1, 133/A/1. 136/,4/l extent Ac.l-10 gts.. situated at Narsimpet. Both ol them availed sanctioned amount. 1'he petitioner stated that suit was clecrced in e\ pa(e. Larer. respondent No.l filed i.p. No.t: ol 2015 against dcfcndants No.l and 2 for recovery of decretal amount, but no notice rvas served to the tlrst petitioner either in suit or in the E.P. During nendency of the matter. it was reflerred to Lok Adalath on 06.07.2018 fbr one tirnc settlement and Rs.4,00,000/- was proposed and aocepted bv hoth thc partics. [{e paid Rs.1,00,000/- on l6.l1.2018. thcn the matter rras adjourned i:: compromise and posted to 14.12.2018. Later. the []ank reported that there is no compromise and taken steps tbr proclamation o1'sale. Subsequently, on 01.04.2019 sale was conducted wilh upset value of Rs.25,00.0001 fixcd by the Court, in which rhe 2"d respondent rvas the successtul bidder lor an amount of Rs.38,00.000/-. and sale was confirmed on 03.06.2019. The entire proceedings either in the suit or in the Ij.A. are not wi(hin the knowledge of the ['t petitioner
)
PSS.J CRP No l08O of 2020
whos€ land was put to auction. Alter tre came to krow of salc held by the Court, he had filed E.A.S.Rs. to set aside the sale, to condone the delay of l4l days in filing tho set aside applicatiorr and to re-open the E.P. lor
fiesh hearing. but they were retumed. He lurther statcd that:
3.3. He turther staled that he is ready to deposit thc [j.P. amount along rvith interest as ordered by the trial Court. He mainly contended that the trial Court in its auction proceedings heldon 1.4.2019 did not rcfer the total value of thc E.P. schedule property with ref-ercncc to any report received from the Bailiff. The land value is Rs.I crore. butthe trial Court erred in fixing the value of the land @ Rs.25,00,000/-. Auctionpurchaser purchased it lor lts.38,00,000/- which is less than t/3'd of thc valuc of the land and the Exccuting Court failed to follow the mandatory provision of Ordcr XXI. Rule 64 o{'Code of CivilProcedurc and applicationfiledby
(t PSS,J CRP No.1O8O of 2020
him is maintainable under Order XXI Rule 90 oiCode of Civil Procedure even after confirmation of the sale when the Court committed material irregularity in the process olconducting auction.
3.4 I{e also lurther stated that as per Order XXI Rule 66(2) and 54 (l-A) ol Code of Civil I'rocedure, service ol notice on the judgmentdcbtor is mandatory betbre :trrction ol the E.P. schedtrle property. Thus, the salc itself is void-ab-initio and he has legal right to raise objection to the sale even afier ccnfjrmation of the sale and he relied upon the decision in the case of ilesh Bandhu Cupta N.L. Anand and "'s. Rajinder Singhl
3.5. He lurther stated that the lirst petitioner died on 05.01.2022 leaving behind the petitioners No.2 ro 4 daughters and respondent No.3 son (defendant Ntr.l). The daughtcrs tile:d L.R. petition in IANo.2 of 2022 and injunction petition in I.A. No, I o12022 and this Court after allowing I-.R. petition. granted interim injunction on 22.06.2022. In which, 4s petitioncr in her alfidavit stated that her father gave her Ac.4-00 gts.. at the time olher marriage in the year 1997 and executed a Gift (settlement) I)eed on Rs.50/- Non-Judicial Stamp on 15.03.201I and thus, their legal
(199.1)tSa( t-r I
1 PSS.J CRP No.1080 of 2020
rights are also atfected.'l'herefbre, he requested to allow the above Civil Rcvision Petition.
li PSS,J CRP No.lO80 of 2020
purpose of construction of the poultry sheds, cngaged labour liomother States and thcl are staying in the schcdule mentionedproperty.
4.1 He ftnher stated that he incurred huge expenditure for securing legal opinion, Engineer's1 alua(in Report for the collateral security belonging to his parents and pro.iect implementation is in Mid-way. If the construction is stopped, in vicw ofrainy'scason. the sand and cement will get damagcs and he has to pay wagcs to his labour. He further stated that he is a bona fide auction purchascr and purchased the properties during Court auction. He was declarcd as successiul bidder for Rs.38,00,000/as against Rs.24.00,000/- fi.<cd b1'the L.xecuting Court. He paid entire bid amount and certificate ol'sale u,as executed on 15.04.2019 and the Court ordered fbr delivery ol-the properties under Ordcr XXI Rule 95 ol Code of Civil Procedure on 02.08.2019 and accordingly, physical deliver was given to hinr atier fixing the boundaries under panchanama dt.09.08.2019.
4.2 He further statcd tiiat as per the market value certillcate dt.O2.07.2022 issued by Sub-Registrar. Suryapct, the market value per acre of the E.P. schedule property is Rs.1.00,000/- lor the period 01.08.2013 to 2021 i.e. during thc pcriod of the public auction. Basing on thc marke{ value certificatc. thc Exccuting Court fixed the upset prices
9 PSS.J CRP No. I080 of 2020
of Rs.24.00,000/- lor the entire schedule ol property. The entire schedule olproperty is not a single bit and having an access from the Donka which is located in Southern side. There is no other access to reach the lands in Sy.Nos.536. 535 and 534 except tkough Sy.No.533 and thus, the Executing Court put the properties in a single [ot. The land in Sy.No.663 is not traceable.'l'hc land in Sy.Nos.l31lA, 133/Al and 136/,4l situated at Narsimpeta village are submerged in vag r. In the panchanama, it was stated that the said lands are not traced and hence possession was not given. He also statcd that at the time of purchase of the schedule property, the EP schedule property is with full of bushes, stones and small boulders and was not cultivable land. He filed photographs olthe nature of, propefiy that is sold by the Executing Court to him. Alter purchasc ol the said propefty, Tahsildar, Atmakur (S) Mandal vide ROR proceedings No.78412019 dt.30.09.2019 nutated the name of the respondent as Pattedar in respect olthe land purchased by the respondent No.3. The Governnlent of Telangana also issued pattedar passbook, title deed book No.T2902091647 (Khatha No.tr0356) and also entered the name ot respondent No.2 as pattedar ofthe land in Dharani Portal.
4.3 He lurrher stated that he incurred huge expenditure for convemion of land rvhich is not cultivable fi'om agricuitural use to non-agricultural
l0 PSS,J CRP No 1o8O of2020
use and Tahsildar and Joint Sub-RegistrarolAtmakur(S) vide proceedings d1.04.03.2022:ssued NalaC)rder. Hd also obtained No Objection Certificate from Grampanchayat,Thummalapenpahadvillage vide proceedings No.0I/GPTPP /2022 dt.29.04 -2022.I'he Grampanchayat has also granted permission for construclion ofPoultry shed in the schedule mentioned property. The respondentNo.2 applied fbr LT supply to Southem Power DistributionCompanyof 'f.S.Limitedand paid Rs.5,34,986/- and he also paid Rs.4,82.569/- toM/s Ayryappa Electrical Works for erectton ol the L.1'. Supply.He niortgagedthe schedule mentionedproperty with tlnion Bankol India as security lor repayment of Rs.6,00,0C0/- on 22.A9.2A2<sup>underregistered deed No. 1202 of 2021 and subsequently the said mo(gagewas a,!soredeemed on 24.02.2022.
4.4 He also stated that aficr delivery of the physicalpossessionof the property, when he was clea,ring the bushcs and put thc barbed lcncing around the schedule mentioned property, thepetitionerNo.l,respondent No.3 and Nelacherla Saidulu tried to interl'ere with hispeacelul possession and enioyment, as such. he flled O.S.No.2O of 2020lor permanent iniunction and also filed I.A. No.l5 of 2020 underC)rder XXXX Rules I and 2 C.P.C. seeking lor temporary injunctionon 10.01.2020 and it rvas cxter',led tiom time to tinre.and on 05.11.2021
II
PSS.J CRP No.lO80 of 2020
extended till lurther ordcrs. Petitioner No.l and respondent No.3 are aware of the injunction orders in I.A.No.l5 of 2020, but the petitioner No.l has suppressed the same. and filed I.-',. No.l of 2O22 and, obtained orders behind his back.
4.5 He lurther stated that "A" schedule property is consisting of Ac.400 gts., in Sy.No.536 situated at Thummalapenpahad village belongs to the respondent No.3, but he has not filed any application before the Executing Cou( to set aside the auction ol "A" schedule properfy, and the auction of the .said property became fi,.ral. But, the petitioner in a mischievous manner shorvn the property belonging to respondent No.3 and sought lbr orders in I.A. No.l of 2022. IIe further stated that the petitioners have no right, titte and intercst in "A" schedule property and as such, the petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief against the "A" schedule properfy and it amounts to gross abuse of process of [aw. He furfher stated that as there is communicati,;- gap between him and his earlier Counsel, he could not place thc conect lacts and he came to know about interim orders when the respondcnt No.l Bank informed that there \vas no representation on his behall and he immediately took NOC vakalat lrom his prcvious counsel and entrusted the matter to the present Counsel.
4.6 He further statedthatas per Article127 of the LimitationAct'the period of limitation to file applicationunder Order XXI Rule 90 of Code of Civil Procedure is60 dayslrom thc date ol sale' He alsoreliedupon the decision in the case ofAARIFABEN YUNUSBHAI & OTHERS
Vs. MUKUL THAKOREBHAI AMIN & OTHERS2 in which it rvas observed that"Seclion5 or the LimitationAct is not applicableto application under OrderXXI Rule 90 of Codeof Civil Proccduresince there is no power to condonethc delay,the petitiorr had to be disn.rissed as being time barred."
4.7. I{e further stated thatas the sale was conducted on 01.04-20i9and whereas the application underOrderXXI Rule 90 was flled afierclosure of EP with a delay of141 tl.rys. as such.it is banedh1' lirnitation'and thus, there is no irregularity inretumingall the threeapplications filed by the petilioners. He enclosed alIthe relevant documentsand also photographs of the suit scheduleproperty alongwith his counter. And thus, requested the Court tovacatethe interimorderspassedin I'A'No'l of 2022 in C.R.P. No.1080 ol2O20.
r Ci\il Appeal No.1643. I644 of2020
I]
PSS,J CRP No. I O8o of 2020
IXXIKI:'l OI{l)l:ltS
Dr.06.07.201 8
Memo filed by decrce holder counsel that parties are going to be compromised in Lok Adalath. I lence, for settlement in Lok Adalath. call on 14.07.2018.
Dt.l4.O7.2Ol?.
Dhr and his Counsel called absent in L/A today. Hence, no settlemcnt effected. Hence, issue liesh saleproclamation, call on 07.08.201 8.
Dr.07.08.2018
P.O. is on EI-. call on 16.08.20 I 8.
Dt.16.08.2018
lssue fresh sale proclamation and prc^laim and sell by next date for filing ol publicalion in Een3i{u Telugu News Papeer of Suryapet District Edition, call on 18.09.2018.
Dr.18.09.2018
Publication filed and it is tbundproper. J.Dr.No.lpresent and requcsts time lor paymcnl.
Petition filed u/s 148 CPC by D.llr. counsel toenlarge time lor conducting auction is allowed as bidders remainedabsent today. Hence, lor sale by I 2.t 0.20I 8.
Dt. 12. 10.201 6
Bidders called absent. Hence, issue lreshsale proclamation and proclaim and selI by filing publication inEenadu'lelugu News Papeer o[ Suryapet District l]dition, callon 15.11.20r8.
l4
PSS.J CRP No. 1080 of 2020
I)r 15 il.2018
Publication filed by DtIr counse l. He repo(ed that JDr.No. I paid Rs.1.00,000/- to their Bank and hence reported to grant time fbr compromise. Hence, for compromise by next datc or for sale of E.P. schrJule property, call on t4. 12.201tl.
Dt.t4.12.2 8
I).O. is on EL, call on 2 I . 12.201 8.
DHr counsel reported that no compromise is effected as JDr.No. I did not tum up to pay the balance amount. Hencc. issue fiesh sale proclamation and proclaim and sell by lilinu publication in Eenadrr Telugu News Papeer ol Suryapcr District Edition, call- r 29.01.2019.
Dt.29.01.20t9
Petition filed u/s 148 CPC is allowed. Issue lresh sale proclamation and proclaim and sell by filing publication in Eenadu Telugu News Papeer of Suryapet District Edition. call on 01.03.2019.
Dr.01.03.2019
As per oflice not proclamation not made but. DHr Counscl tiled papcr publicati".r. Hence. issue sale proclamation on payment of' process and for report by 01.04.2019 to conducr auction. call on 0l .04.201 9.
Dt l9
As pcr rules, sale is held in respect ol E.P. schedule propert), todal in the open Court hall. DHr present. JDr is called
li
PSS.J CRP No.I08O of2020
absent and no representation on hei ochalf. Dllr and (6) other biddeis present and participated in the auction. Proclamation was made in thc village on I 1.03.2019 at Thummalapcnpahad and Narsimpet village. Publication in Eenadu, Suryapet District Edition is filed on 14.02.2019. For E.P. amount of Rs. 12,08,940/-, upset valuc of Rs.25,00,000/is fixed by the Cou(. D[{r along with biddcrs i.e. total (7) bidders are present and pa(icipated in the auction proceedings. Sale held in the open Court today aI 4.30 p.m. and knocked. down in favour of Vcirna Bharath Rcddy S/o Chandra Reddy R/o Kesaram village of Suryapet Mandal for Rs.38,00,000/- being the highest bidder. The Il.l'- amountis Rs.12,08,940i-. The l/4'h sale amount of Rs.9.50.0001 and poundage of Rs.29,2201- (total amount of Rs.9.79,220l-) which is the due amount paid by the auction purchaser towards the payment of sale anrount. The DI{rpaid an amount of Rs.29,2201- towardspoundage. 'uvhichis deposited today i.e. 01.04.2019. The auctio. purchaser is hereby directed to pay the due amount ol Rs.28.20.780/- within( l5) days from this date and also todepositsale certificatestamp amount within(15) days. [{ence. call on15.04.20t9. On verification, it is found that thc amount iswrongly calculated by the ofllce as Pls.29.22C1- instcad ol Rs.t,14,720l- hence. the correct amount ofRs.l.l4.720l towards poundagervas collected liomthe auctionpurchaser along with l/4'h sale amount ofRs.9.50,000/-i.e. total ol Rs.10,64,7204, call on I 5.04.2019.
Dr.15.04.2019
l6
PSS,J CRP No.108O of 2020
Sale held on 0l .04.2019.
Dt.03.06.2019
DHr cailcci absent. No representation. JDr No. I present. On perusal ol' the record, it is found that sale was held on 01.04.2019. and it rvas knocked down in tavour of V. Bharath Reddy lor Rs.38,00,000/- (third party, bidder No.1). Out of it. l/4'r' ol sale auction amount of Rs.9,50.0004 and poundage amount of Rs.|,14,720/- was paid on 0l .04.2019 itscll. The remaining auction amount for Rs.28,50,000/- rvas paid on t5.04.2019 .'rd so also an amount of Rs.1,52,0001 tou,ards purchase of sale of stamps.
'Ioda1. the case is coming up for sale conformation. No claim petitions flled and pending. As the stipulated period ol 60 da1.s is complcted, sale is confirmed today. Full sal.isfaction is recorded and E.P. is terminated. Issue cheque fbr Rs. 1.52.000/- in lavour of treasury for purchase ol nonjudicial stamps. Issue sale certificate and the same may be sent to Sub-Registrar 1..,r registration.
l1 PSS,J CRP No.l OSO of 2O2O
I8 PSS,J CRP No. toti0 of 2020
rclied upon the reporr ol the Bailift-. Whereas the Court considering the material submitted by the Sub-Registrar @ Rs.1,00,000/- per acre, auclioncd the properr), bv fixing upset price as Rs.25,00,000/-. Thus, the argu,nent ol'(hc petitioner's Counsel cannot be accepted-
l9 PSS,J CRP No 1O8O of 2020
of auction purchaser in O.S.No. 20 of 2C20, the petitionersobtained restraint order in I.A. No.1 o12022 itamounts to abuse of processof law and thus, the petitioners are liable topay costs ofRs.10,000/- to respondent No.2/Auction Purchaserwithinoneweek from the date of this order.
SMT. P. SREE SUDHA,.I
DA'l l'.:02.08.2022 RDR
Yaragani Yagaiah LRs
Venna Bharath Reddy
P. Sree Sudha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
