The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.2204 of 2014
Dated 14.08.2014
Between:
M.Lakshminarayana …Petitioner/J.Dr.
And R.Durga Bai and 2 others.
…Respondents/respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Anguru Manohar Counsel for the respondents: ---
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 13.06.2014, in EA.No.167 of 2009 in EP.No.57 of 1997 in C.D.No.49 of 1994, on the file of the Court of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District (for short ‘the lower Court’).
The petitioner is the judgment debtor in Consumer Dispute No.49 of 1994. Respondent No.1- decree holder filed EP.No.57 of 1997 for recovery of the decretal amount. In pursuance thereof, the immovable property belonging to the petitioner was sold in a Court auction, in which respondent No.2 has emerged as the highest bidder. The said offer was accepted by the Execution Court. Consequently, sale certificate was issued and possession of the said property was delivered to respondent No.2.
The petitioner has earlier filed EA.No.130 of 2004 for setting aside the sale. The said EA was dismissed on 25-11-2004 with liberty to the petitioner or the Prudential Cooperative Bank, to which a part of the property sold in auction was stated to have been mortgaged, to file a fresh application under appropriate provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Five years thereafter, the petitioner has filed EA.No.167 of 2009 under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC for setting aside the sale held on 03-09-1997 and the Sale Certificate issued to respondent No.2 on 07-04-1998. This application was dismissed by the lower Court inter alia on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The lower Court has also held that there is no material irregularity in the sale.
Though Order XXI Rule 90 CPC does not prescribe limitation for setting aside the sale on the ground of material irregularity or fraud, under Article 99 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, a period of one year is prescribed as limitation from the date the sale is confirmed or would otherwise have become final and conclusive, had no such suit been brought for setting aside of sale by a civil or revenue court. Hence, it is clear that the aggrieved party could not file a suit for setting aside the sale beyond one year of its confirmation. The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor and who had the knowledge of sale, cannot be permitted to question the sale held more than five years thereafter. Thus, the application filed by the petitioner is hopelessly barred by limitation. On this ground alone, EA.No.167 of 2009 deserved to be dismissed and the lower Court has rightly done so.
For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
As a sequel, CRPMP.No.3085 of 2014 is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) Dt: 14th August, 2014
LUR