REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6322 OF 2004

U. Sowri Reddy (Dead) by Lrs. .. Appellant

-versus-

B. Suseelamma & Ors. ..      Respondents  

J U D G M E N T

Markandey Katju, J.

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 12.4.2002 in  

C.R.P.  No.5939  of  2001  of  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh  at  

Hyderabad.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.  

3. The facts have been stated in detail in the impugned order and  

hence we are not repeating the same here except where necessary.

4. One  B.  Chandrasekhara  Reddy,  the  predecessor  of  the  

respondents  herein  filed   suit  no.23 of  1992 before  the  Subordinate  

Judge, Gooty against the appellant herein for recovery of an amount of  

Rs.26,720/- being the principal amount and interest due on a pronote  

dated 3.4.1991 executed by the appellant herein for Rs.24,000/- payable  

with interest at 12% per annum.  That suit was decreed ex-parte by the  

learned  Subordinate  Judge,  Gooty  on  10.2.1995  and  the  plaintiff-

respondent  filed an Execution Petition for realization of the decretal  

amount  by  sale  of  the  immovable  property  of  the  appellant.   On  

15.9.1997 the sale was held in favour of the respondents herein.  It is  

alleged  that  the  property  was  worth  of  Rs.15  lacs  but  was  sold  for  

Rs.3,15,000/- to realize the decretal amount of Rs.40,364/-.   

5. The appellant herein filed an application under Order 21 Rule 90  

C.P.C. to set aside the sale of property.  That application was dismissed  

by the trial court.  A Civil Revision Petition No.1423 of 1998 was filed  

by the appellant in the High Court against that order.  The High Court  

by order dated 10.04.1998 gave an opportunity to the judgment debtor  

to pay the decretal amount.

2

6. It is alleged that on 16.4.1998 in pursuance of the High Court  

order  dated  10.4.1998  the  appellant  herein  deposited  the  decretal  

amount.   However,  on 22.7.1998 the Executing Court  dismissed the  

application to set aside the sale of the property in question.  Against  

that order a Civil Revision was filed and on 9.10.1998 the High Court  

allowed the Civil Revision Petition No.3957 of 1998 and remanded the  

matter to the trial court for fresh disposal.  Thereafter on 2.11.2001 the  

application of the appellant was allowed and the sale was set aside with  

a direction to the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.18,000/-.  That order  

has been set aside by the impugned order of the High Court and hence  

this appeal.

7. In our opinion the impugned order of the High Court cannot be  

sustained.   It  appears  that  the  High  Court  ignored  the  deposit  of  

Rs.18,000/- on 06.11.2001 in pursuance of order dated 2.11.2001, and  

failed  to  take  into  account  the  order  dated  11.12.2001  of  learned  

Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissing the Execution Petition No.17  

3

of 1996 and also did not take into consideration the earlier order dated  

10.4.1998 in Civil Revision Petition No.3957 of 1998.

8. In our opinion the High Court was not justified in interfering in a  

Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 C.P.C. when the amount of  

Rs.  18,000/-  was  deposited  on  06.11.2001  as  per  order  dated  

02.11.2001.  

9. For  the  reasons  given  above  this  appeal  is  allowed  and  the  

impugned order of the High Court is set aside.

……………………………..J. (Markandey Katju)

……………………………..J. (Gyan Sudha Misra)

New Delhi;  April 04, 2011

4