U. SOWRI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS.versusB. SUSEELAMMA AND ORS.

                        [2011] 4 S.C.R. 232


A              U. SOWRI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS.
                                 v.                    \
                   B. SUSEELAMMA AND ORS.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 6322 of 2004)
                           APRIL 4, 2011
B
    [MARKANDEY KAT JU AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.)

        Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 115 - Suit for recovery
  of principal amount and interest due on pronote executGd by
C the appellant - Decreed ex-parte - Respondent-plaintiff filed
  Execution Petition for realization of the decretal amount by
  sale of the immovablG property of the appellant - Sale held
  in favour of the respondents - Appellant filed application to
  set aside the sale of the property - Application dismissed -
o Multiple rounds of. litigation - Matter remanded to tnal court
  for fresh disposal - Sale set aside with direction to appellant
  to deposit a sum of Rs. 18, 0001- - Order set aside by High
  Court in Civil Revision - Held: High Court ignored the deposit
  of Rs.18,0001-in pursuance of the court order, and a/so failed
E to take into account earlier orders in the matter - High Court
  was not justified in interfering in a Civil Revision Petition
  under s.115 CPC, when the amount of Rs.18,0001- was
  already deposited.
      The predecessor of the respondents had flied a suit
F against the appellant for recovery of the principal amount
  and interest due on a pronote executed by the appellant.
  The suit was decreed ex-parte and the plaintiff.
  respondent filed an E~ecution Petition for realization of
  the decretal amount by sale of the immovable property
G of the appellant. The sale was held in favour of the
  respondents. The appellant filed an application under
  Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C. to set aside the sale of property.
  The application was dismissed on which the appellant

H                               232
       U. SOWRI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B.                 233
             SUSEELAMMA AND ORS.
filed a Civil Revision Petition whereupon the High Court          A
gave an opportunity to the appellant-judgment debtor to
pay the decretal amount. The appellant deposited the
decretal amount. However, subsequently the Executing
Court dismissed the application to set aside the sale of
the property in question. Against that .order a Civil             B
Revision was filed. The High Court allowed the Civil
Revision Petition and remanded the matter to the trial
court for fresh disposal. Thereafter 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/         c
-. That ord~r was set aside by the impugned order of the
High Court and hence the present appeal.

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD:1. The impugned order of the High Court                 D
cannot be sustained. It appears that the High Court
ignored the deposit of Rs.18,000/- in pursuance of order
dated 2.11.2001, and failed to take into account the order
dated 11.12.2001 of the Additional Senior Civil Judge
dismissing the Execution Petition No.17 of 1996 and also          E
did not take into consideration the earlier order dated
10.4.1998 in Civil Revision Petition. 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/- ~as
deposited on 06.11.2001 .as per order., dated 02.11 ~2001.        F
[Paras 7, 8] [235-C-E]

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal N6,
6322 of 2004.
    From the Judgment & Order dated 12.4.2002 of the High         G
Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderbad in Civil Revision Petition
No. 5939 of 2001.

    A. Subba Rao for the Appellants.
                                                                  H
    234       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 4 S.C.R.


A      A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, V. Sridhar Reddy for Abhijit
    Sengupta) for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. This appeal has be.en filed
B 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.
c       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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H
    U. SOWRI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. v. B.   235
SUSEELAMMA AND ORS. [MARKANDEY KATJU, J.)
     6. It is alleged that on 16.4.1998 in i.iursuance of the High   A
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      B
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           c
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     D
11.12.2001 of learned Additional Senior Civil Judge dismissing
the Execution Petition No.17 of 1996 and also did not take into
consideration the earlier order dated 10.4.1998 in Civil
Revision Petition No.3957 of 1998.
                                                                     E
      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.
                                                                     F
     9. For the reasons given above this appeal is allowed and
the impugned order of the High Court is set aside.         ·

B.8.8.                                          Appeal allowed.