Page 1

1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.9658 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.1627 of 2014)

Guttikonda Venkataramaiah ... Appellant

Versus

Godavarthy Venkateswarlu & Anr. ... Respondents

J U D G M E N T

ANIL R. DAVE, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel.    

2. Leave granted.

3. In this appeal, the appellant – an auction purchaser,  

has  challenged  the  validity  of  the  judgment  dated  13th  

December, 2013, delivered in Civil Revision Petition No.6528

Page 2

2

of 2012 by the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh  

at Hyderabad.   

4. The  appellant  is  an  auction  purchaser,  whereas  

respondent no.1 is a principal debtor and respondent no.2  

is a creditor in this case.   

5. The  facts  giving  rise  to  the  present  litigation,  in  a  

nutshell, are as under:

Respondent no.2 had filed OS No.45 of  2006 in the  

Court  of  Principal  Senior  Civil  Judge,  Tenali  against  

respondent no.1 for recovery of Rs.1,78,000/-.   An ex-parte  

decree was passed on 29th December, 2006 and the decretal  

amount was Rs.3,55,732/-.   It appears from the record that  

no  successful  effort  was  made  by  respondent  no.1  to  

challenge the said ex-parte decree.

6. Thereafter,  the  execution  proceedings  had  been  

initiated by respondent no.2 for sale of immovable property  

–  agricultural  land  belonging  to  the  principal  debtor  –  

respondent no.1 herein and the sale was conducted on 30th

Page 3

3

May, 2011. The property had been sold for Rs.13,05,000/-  

in an auction and the said amount had been paid by the  

appellant, who is the auction purchaser.   

7. Subsequently, respondent no.1 had filed Civil Revision  

Petition  No.2610  of  2011  in  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  

Pradesh pointing out certain irregularities in the execution  

proceedings.    The  said  civil  revision  petition  had  been  

disposed of on 22nd July, 2011 as it was open to him to file  

an application under Rule 90 of Order XXI of the CPC.  In  

pursuance  of  the  aforestated  order  passed  by  the  High  

Court,  E.A. No.426 of 2011 had been filed by respondent  

no.1.  However, the same had been dismissed for default on  

22nd February, 2012.  An effort to get the said application  

restored to file had also been failed.  

8. Finally,  the  Executing  Court  had  also  permitted the  

auction  purchaser  to  take  possession  of  the  property  in  

question vide its order dated 7th November, 2012.  

Page 4

4

9. In the aforestated circumstances, respondent no.1 had  

filed Civil Revision Petition No.6528 of 2012 challenging the  

order  dated 7th November,  2012 passed  by  the  executing  

Court before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

10. After hearing the concerned counsel, the High Court by  

the impugned judgment dated 13th December, 2013, allowed  

the  petition  and  set  aside  the  sale  and  directed  the  

Executing Court to take appropriate action for sale of the  

property in question in accordance with the provisions of  

Rules 64 and 66 of  Order XXI of  the CPC.   It  was also  

directed that respondent no.1 i.e. the petitioner before the  

High Court should deposit the amount which had been paid  

to the decree holder i.e. the present respondent no.2.  The  

amount deposited by the auction purchaser was directed to  

be refunded to him by the executing Court and it was also  

directed that respondent no.1 – the judgment debtor should  

be put into possession of the property in question.

11. We would also like to record some of the proceedings of  

this Court in this judgment.  At the time when the appeal

Page 5

5

was notified for hearing on 14th July, 2014, this Court had  

directed  respondent  no.1  –  the  judgment  debtor,  to  pay  

Rs.15,50,000/-  to  the  present  appellant  because  the  

appellant  had  paid  Rs.13,05,000/-  when  the  property  in  

question had been purchased by him on 30th May, 2011.  

The amount so paid by the appellant had been tied up since  

long and so as to return his amount with some additional  

amount  by  way  of  compensation,  we  had  directed  

respondent  no.1  to  pay  Rs.15,50,000/-,  but  respondent  

no.1  failed  to  do  so  upto  4th August,  2014,  the  date  on  

which the hearing was adjourned.

12. Once again, on 4th August, 2014, we granted further  

time to respondent no.1 to make payment of the aforesaid  

amount  to  the  appellant  before  15th September,  2014.  

However,  in  spite  of  this  additional  time  granted  to  

respondent no.1, he did not pay the amount to the appellant  

and on 15th September,  2014,  respondent  no.1,  who was  

personally present in the Court had expressed his inability  

to pay the aforestated amount to the auction purchaser.  We

Page 6

6

are narrating the said fact so as to show that the principal  

debtor was not only careless at an earlier point of time while  

defending his case, but even after losing his case and after  

getting his  property  sold in  an auction,  he was not  even  

prepared to pay back the amount to the auction purchaser.  

It was also clarified at that time that upon payment of the  

said amount to the auction purchaser, respondent no.1 was  

entitled to withdraw the amount which had been deposited  

by the auction purchaser with the Court while purchasing  

the property in question.   The aforestated directions were  

given by this Court from time to time so as to know the  

bona fides of respondent no.1 – the principal debtor.

13. The  aforestated  proceedings  show  behaviour  and  

nature of the principal debtor.

14. It  had  been  mainly  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  

appellant  –  the  auction  purchaser  that  he  had  made  

complete payment for purchasing the property in question  

at an auction and even the sale had been confirmed in his  

favour by an order dated 23rd February, 2012.  In spite of

Page 7

7

the said fact, appellant was not having peaceful possession  

of the suit property which had been purchased by him.  It  

had  been  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  that  the  

submission made on behalf of respondent no.1 to the effect  

that the property was worth Rs.30 lakhs was not correct.  

Had it been so, there would have been several other bidders  

who  would  have  offered  higher  bids  at  the  time  of  the  

auction.  According to the appellant, the price offered by the  

appellant was quite reasonable and fair market value of the  

property in question.   

15. In  the  aforestated  circumstances,  it  had  been  

submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the  

judgment delivered by the High Court, whereby the property  

is to be put to sale once again, would act harshly upon the  

appellant,  especially  when  the  appellant  had  offered  the  

highest bid and had purchased the property, sale of which  

had also been confirmed on 23rd February, 2012.  According  

to him, the entire proceedings should come to an end.  It  

had also been specifically submitted that respondent no.1

Page 8

8

had  shown  his  negligent  approach  towards  the  entire  

proceedings  and  even  before  this  Court,  though  he  had  

shown his willingness to make the payment to the appellant  

at one point of time.  Finally, he had shown his inability to  

make the payment and his intention was only to see that  

the  proceedings  were  prolonged  unnecessarily.  In  the  

circumstances,  the  learned  counsel  had  prayed  that  the  

impugned judgment  should  be  quashed and set  aside  so  

that the entire exercise with regard to sale of property in  

question may not have to be repeated.  

16. On the other hand, it had been submitted on behalf of  

the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1  

– the judgment debtor, that the execution proceedings had  

not been conducted properly.  Though the decretal amount  

was Rs.3,55,732/-, the entire property was put to sale by  

the executing Court.   According to the learned counsel for  

respondent no.1, by sale of a portion of the property, the  

dues of the principal debtor could have been satisfied and  

therefore, there was violation of the provisions of Rules 64

Page 9

9

and  66  of  Order  XXI  of  the  CPC.  He  had,  therefore,  

submitted  that  the  impugned  judgment  delivered  by  the  

High Court was just and proper.  

17. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we  

are  of  the  view  that  the  judgment  delivered  by  the  High  

Court is not just and proper for the reason that respondent  

no.1-  debtor  had  never  shown  his  fairness  in  the  entire  

proceedings.  Though an ex-parte decree was passed against  

him,  he  never  made  sincere  efforts  to  get  the  decree  set  

aside.  Even at the time when the sale proclamation had  

been issued, he did not raise any objection to the effect that  

even by sale of  lesser area of  his land, the decree-holder  

would get his dues.  Only after the auction sale had been  

concluded,  he  had  initiated  different  proceedings  before  

different Courts, perhaps only with an intention to see that  

the property in question is not transferred to the auction  

purchaser.

18. In our opinion, respondent no.1 ought to have raised  

his objection at the stage when the property in question was

Page 10

10

to be sold by an auction.  He did not do so.  Subsequently,  

after the property was sold at the auction, he approached  

the High Court, though a proper remedy for him was to file  

an  application  under  Rule  90  of  Order  XXI  of  the  CPC.  

When the High Court had directed him to file appropriate  

proceedings  before  an  appropriate  forum,  he  did  so,  but  

there also he was so careless that the proceedings had been  

concluded against him on account of defaults committed by  

him.

19. The aforestated circumstances very well show that the  

intention of the principal debtor is to avoid making payment  

to the decree holder.  If the judgment delivered by the High  

Court  is  upheld,  the  entire  proceedings  with  regard  to  

execution will commence de novo and one does not know as  

to when the proceedings would be concluded and the decree  

holder would get the decretal  amount.   By this time,  the  

decretal  amount,  which was  Rs.3,55,732/-  somewhere  in  

2006, must have increased substantially and it would not

Page 11

11

be just and proper to keep the decree holder waiting still  

more.   

20. For the aforestated reasons, in the interest of justice,  

we feel that the impugned judgment delivered by the High  

Court deserves to be quashed and set aside.  If the auction  

purchaser is not in possession of the property in question or  

if there is obstruction by respondent no.1, such obstruction  

shall  be  removed  and  the  appellant  shall  be  put  in  

possession of the property in question.

21. For  the  aforestated  reasons,  the  appeal  is  allowed.  

The impugned judgment is quashed and set aside, however,  

with no order as to costs.    

     ......…………………….J    (ANIL R. DAVE)

     ...…...…………………..J           (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

NEW DELHI OCTOBER 13, 2014.