AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Review Petition is filed seeking to review the order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.4837 of 2018 on 09.10.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, as the order passed by the trial Court under Order XXI, Rule 97 of the CPC must be treated as a decree and, as such, an appeal lies. It is submitted that the Civil Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner cannot be entertained in view of the specific bar under Section 115(2)of the CPC.
It is submitted that the petitioner had preferred S.L.P.No.3452 of 2025 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and, after arguing for some time, the SLP was sought to be withdrawn, reserving a liberty to seek review of the order passed by this Court, with a further liberty to file a fresh petition subject to the need so arising.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that any order passed under Order XXI, Rule 97 to Rule 103 ought to be treated as a decree, and the aggrieved party ought to file an appeal. The civil revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC is not maintainable. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of S.Rajeshwari Vs S.N.Kulasekaran1.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that, even if the petitioner's submission is considered, the appeal would anyway lie to the High Court. It is submitted that, except for changing the nomenclature of the proceeding before this Court, there is no significant difference insofar as the prayer of the party approaching this Court against the order passed by the trial Court under Order XXI, Rule 97 to Rule 103. It is also submitted that even if a CMA is filed before this Court instead of the C.R.P filed, it must be decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court, and not by the learned Division Bench. As such, the review petition ought to be dismissed. It is also submitted that the review petitioner, instead of withdrawing the SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, ought to have argued on merits.
It is submitted that the facts are not in dispute and the parties to E.A.No.474 of 2004 are aware of the respective claims. It is also submitted that the respondent, the petitioner in the review petition, has awaited possession of the property for more than 24 years. It is submitted that the respondent herein purchased the property in a court auction, and it is the court's duty to hand over physical possession of the property. It is submitted that when attempts to deliver possession of the property were resisted by the petitioner and others, the respondent herein had to approach the court by filing an application under Order XXI Rule 97 to 103. It is submitted that the Advocate Commissioner's report submitted before this Court clearly shows that the Review Petitioner is in possession of excess land and, as such, the same ought to be handed over to the petitioner.
Learned counsel appearing for the respondent placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the matter of S.Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and others and Kiran Devi v. Bihar State Sunni Wakf Board 2, It is submitted that the scope for review is very limited and that the petitioner ought to demonstrate the error on the face of the record. It is submitted that the ground for review is more technical than a ground for reviewing the order passed by this Court on merits.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
A court sale that cannot deliver possession is a promise the law makes and fails to keep. The auction purchaser has parted with his money on the faith of a judicial sale; the law must not leave him holding a title he cannot enjoy.
The 1st respondent herein/auction purchaser has participated in the Court auction conducted in EP.No.37 of 1996 in T.O.S.No.112 of 1985 on 24.10.2022. The sale was confirmed on 24.10.2002, and the sale certificate was issued on 04.02.2003. As possession of the purchased property was not delivered to the 1st respondent herein, E.A.No.474 of 2004 was filed, and after 14 years, the E.A was dismissed.
The Review Petitioner had purchased land admeasuring Ac.1.17 cents in Sy.No.286-A in the auction conducted under the same E.P.No.37 of 1996, and possession was delivered to him. The respondent No.1 herein had purchased land in Sy.No.285/1 in the auction conducted in E.P.No.37 of 1996.
To resolve the dispute, the trial Court appointed an advocate commissioner and received the report for adjudication. This Court also appointed an advocate commissioner after finding the report of the advocate commissioner submitted before the trial Court not satisfactory. The Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Court has submitted a comprehensive report, which this Court has considered along with the survey maps and the report of the Mandal Surveyor, Nellore Rural Mandal. The report of the surveyor has found that the review petitioner is in possession of land admeasuring Ac.1.60 cents, out of which Ac.0.99 cents of land is in survey number 285/1 and Ac.0.61 cents of land is in survey number 286/2, thus clarifying the ground position with regard to the possession of Ac.0.99 cents of land in Sy.No.285/1 belonging to the 1st respondent herein and the petitioner who filed the CRP.
Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium It is in the public interest that there be an end to litigation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi3, laid down mandatory directions and guidelines for dealing with delays in disposing of execution petitions.
The Review Petitioner himself participated in the auction conducted by the court and was put in possession of the property purchased by him. The Review Petitioner ought not to have interfered with the first respondent's attempts by raising an objection in the EA he filed, seeking possession of the property purchased by the first respondent.
The Review Petitioner has raised a technical objection that the order passed under Order XXI, Rule 97, is an appealable order and that a revision would not lie. Order XXI Rule 101 of the CPC requires the court to determine the questions arising between the parties to a proceeding or an application under Rule 97 or Rule 99. As seen from the order passed in E.A.No.474 of 2004, the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner therein on the ground that the petitioner failed to prove that the land of the petitioner purchased in court auction was in possession of the opposite parties and that it further held that the petitioner failed to prove that some land of him was in possession of the respondents, as the respondents proved that they are in possession of their respective lands; as such, the petitioner therein was disentitled to the relief as sought for before the trial Court.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sushil Kumar Sen Vs. State of Bihar4 held that the processual law so dominates in certain systems as to overpower substantive rights and substantial justice. The humanist rule that procedure should be the handmaid, not the mistress, of legal justice compels consideration of vesting a residual power in judges to act ex debito justiciae where the tragic sequel otherwise would be wholly inequitable.
The auction purchaser's endeavour was to enjoy the property purchased. Here is a case where the auction purchaser has waited for more than 24 years to take possession of the property which was purchased by him in the auction. At this point, dismissing the CRP by holding that a CMA ought to have been filed is a hyper-technical approach which serves no purpose. The stand of the review petitioner does not change in the CMA, nor does the adjudication process change. As this Court has considered all the issues raised and passed an order on merits.
The review petitioner has not raised any objection regarding the maintainability of the CRP at any point till date. The Review Petitioner has also filed elaborate written arguments and has not raised any objection regarding the maintainability of the CRP. The Review Petitioner has also not filed any objections to the report submitted by the Advocate Commissioner together with the sketch forwarded by the Mandal Surveyor. This clearly establishes that the land admeasuring Ac.0.99 cents is in the possession of the Review Petitioner, which was purchased, and ought to be handed over to the 1st respondent herein.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Periyammal (Dead) Through Lrs & Others Vs. V.Rajamani & Another5 dealt with the issue of plight of the seeker of justice and the observed that such persons are and can be dragged till the last ladder of the hierarchy of courts for receiving justice and even there he only breathes fear of receiving the fruits of the justice for which he has been aspiring to receive.
This Court finds no valid grounds for review and it is apparent that the real object of the review is to stall delivery of possession to an auction purchaser who purchased the property in the Court auction conducted 24 years ago; the ends of justice are served by refusing to let a technical objection be used as a shield.
Accordingly the review is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.