AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.S. Narayana, J.—Heard Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned Counsel representing revision petitioners and Sri Rama Mohan Palanki and Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Counsel representing contesting respondents.
This Court while admitting the civil revision petition on 4.4.2008 in C.R.P. M.P. No. 1781 of 2008 made the following order:
There shall be interim stay of proceedings in E.P. No. 44 of 2003 in O.S. No. 74 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram, on condition of the petitioners herein depositing a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) to the credit of E.P. within a period of ten days from today. In default, this order shall stand rescinded without further reference to Court, and it shall be open to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Narsapuram, to proceed with E.P. No. 44 of 2003.
It is stated that the said conditional order had been complied with. CRP MP No. 3370 of 2008 is filed to vacate the interim stay granted in CRP MP No. 1781 of 2008 in CRP No. 1363 of 2008 dated 4.4.2008. When the vacate stay application is taken up for hearing, the Counsel representing the parties made a request for disposal of the civil revision petition itself. Hence, the civil revision petition had been heard finally by this Court.
Sri A.V. Sesha Sai, learned Counsel representing the revision petitioner had taken this Court through the contents of the order which had been impugned in the present civil revision petition and would maintain that no convincing reasons as such had been recorded and the dismissal of the application at the threshold in such a manner may not be justified.
On the contrary, Sri Rama Mohan Palanki and Sri K. Chidambaram, the Counsel representing contesting respondents would maintain that an application to set aside sale under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC had been moved. The same is pending disposal and when that being so, the present application under Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC cannot be maintained or further prosecuted.
Incidentally, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents also had taken this Court through the historical background of the litigation and would maintain that in the light of the facts and circumstances no useful purpose would be served in further enquiring into the said application.
As can be seen from the respective stands taken by the parties, it appears to be not in serious controversy that an application to set aside sale had been already preferred by the revision petitioners under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC raising certain grounds and it is also not in controversy that the same is pending disposal.
Order XXI Rule 89 of the CPC deals with application to set aside sale and Sub-section (2) specifies that where a person applies under Rule 90 to set aside the sale of his immovable property, he shall not, unless he withdraws his application, be entitled to make or prosecute an application under this Rule.
In the light of the said provision this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be found fault. It is needless to say that the petitioners are at liberty to prosecute the other litigations said to be pending in accordance with law.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, the civil revision petition shall stand dismissed. No costs. 11. It is needless to say that inasmuch as this Court is dismissing the civil revision petition, the petitioners are at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited in pursuance of the direction made by this Court.