P. S. NARAYANA, J. ( 1 ) P. SRIDHAR Reddy, Counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. Metta Chandrasekhar, Counsel for the respondent. ( 2 ) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 25 of 1999 filed the present revision petition. The suit was filed against the institution (temple) for recovery of certain amount on the foot of receipt dated 8-10-1995. The case of the revision petitioner-plaintiff is that the respondent-temple is having land in an extent of Ac. 2. 68 cents in Sy. No. 399 of Gowravaram village and the Executive Officer of the respondent-temple had conducted auction on 8-10-1995 to lease out the said land. The petitioner had participated in the said auction and was declared as highest bidder and as such the auction was knocked down in his favour on condition of payment of maktha at 4 putties and 2 tooms of paddy per year. The petitioner herein also paid an advance of Rs. 6,150/- to the respondent-temple and the Executive Officer of the institution has passed receipt relating to the same. It was also averred that actually Sure Srinivasulu Reddy and Medarumetla Obul reddy of Gowravaram village have been in possession of the said land and without taking from those persons the institution had proceeded with the auction and for that reason possession was not delivered by the respondent-temple to the revision petitioner in pursuance of the said auction and it was also stated that the said persons had instituted a suit in OS No. 235 of 1995 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kavali for permanent injunction against the present revision petitioner and have obtained interim injunction in IA No. 1341 of 1995 against the petitioner as well as the respondent herein. The respondent herein filed a written statement raising several contentions pleading collusion and foul play. During the trial, plaintiff was examined as PW1 and documents Exs. A1 to A4 were marked on his behalf. On behalf of the respondent-defendant the Executive Officer was examined as DW1 and document Ex. B1 was marked on his behalf. ( 3 ) THE admitted facts as can be culled out from the material on record are as follow1s: (i) The defendant temple is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac. 2. 68 cents in Sy. No. 399 of Gowrvaram village. B1 was marked on his behalf. ( 3 ) THE admitted facts as can be culled out from the material on record are as follow1s: (i) The defendant temple is the owner of the land in an extent of Ac. 2. 68 cents in Sy. No. 399 of Gowrvaram village. (ii) Previously one Medarametla Chenchureddy was the tenant of the said extent of land belonging to temple and subsequently prior to the suit lease auction dated 8-10-1995 the said Chenchureddy died, (iii) The Executive Officer of defendant temple gave publicity about the auction of lease hold rights in Ex. Bl relating to the said land and a public auction was conducted on 8-10-1995. (iv) The plaintiff participated in the auction of lease hold rights for the said land and he was declared as highest bidder for payment of maktha by way of 4 putties and 2 tooms paddy per annum. Immediately on the same day the plaintiff paid and deposited advance amount of rs. 6,150/- towards the lease amount and obtained the receipt on Ex. A1. (v) One Sure Srinivasulu Reddy and Medarametla Obul Reddy filed a suit for permanent injunction in OS No. 235 of 1995 as against the plaintiff and defendant herein in respect of the same land of Ac. 2. 68 cents and also obtained interim injunction in IA No. 1341 of 1995 as against the parties to the present suit. (vi) The defendant herein filed his written statement in the said OS No. 235 of 1995 and contesting the suit whereas the plaintiff herein failed to contest the suit and remained ex parte in the said OS No. 235 of 1995. (vii) The plaintiff and defendant exchanged the notices in Ex. A2 to A4 in respect of recovery of amount under receipt in Ex. A1 and also for payment of the maktha amount". ( 4 ) THE Court below while dealing with the respective contentions of the parties and also the documentary evidence had observed: "but on perusal of the conditions of auction in Ex. Bl it is clear that the burden lies upon the plaintiff to take steps in entering into the auctioned land. Condition No. 7 in Ex. ( 4 ) THE Court below while dealing with the respective contentions of the parties and also the documentary evidence had observed: "but on perusal of the conditions of auction in Ex. Bl it is clear that the burden lies upon the plaintiff to take steps in entering into the auctioned land. Condition No. 7 in Ex. Bl is quite clear that immediately after the confirmation of lease hold rights within a week the highest bidder has to produce the stamp papers before the Executive Officer and obtain a registered lease deed and on that the highest bidder has to enter into the auctioned land. In the present case, admittedly the plaintiff was declared as highest bidder and obtained leasehold rights in respect of the auctioned land. As per condition No. 7 the plaintiff has to produce the stamp papers with his own amount and obtain a registered lease from Executive Officer and then has to take delivery of the auctioned land. But in the present case though the plaintiff was declared as highest bidder and agreed to pay maktha to a tune of 4 putties 2 tooms of paddy per annum and also deposited advance amount of Rs. 6,150/- but failed to get the lease registered and take delivery of the auctioned land. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not moved his little finger in obtaining a regular registered lease deed from defendant and take delivery of schedule land. The plaintiff simply imputed allegations against the defendant contending that the defendant temple failed to deliver the auctioned land in his favour. Before delivering the auctioned land in favour of plaintiff there is an obligation on the part of plaintiff to produce stamped papers before the Executive Officer of defendant temple and obtain a regular registered lease deed and then he has to enter into the auctioned land. Thus the plaintiff failed to comply with the condition No. 7 in Ex. B1. Since the plaintiff failed to comply with condition No. 7 in Ex. Bl, the plaintiff is not entitled for possession of auctioned land. Therefore, on the ground that the defendant temple failed to deliver the land in his favour plaintiff cannot claim refund of amount paid under Ex. Al". ( 5 ) WHILE dealing with condition No. 27 at paragraph 8 the Court below had observed: ". . . . . . Condition No27 in Ex. Therefore, on the ground that the defendant temple failed to deliver the land in his favour plaintiff cannot claim refund of amount paid under Ex. Al". ( 5 ) WHILE dealing with condition No. 27 at paragraph 8 the Court below had observed: ". . . . . . Condition No27 in Ex. Bl is quite clear and unambiguous that if there are any disputes in respect of the temple lands the plaintiff immediately bring it to the notice of defendant temple for taking appropriate action. But in the present case the plaintiff failed to bring it to the notice of defendant temple with regard to the possession of the auctioned land. According to the contention of plaintiff one Sure Srinivasulu Reddy and Obul Reddy are in possession and enjoyment of auctioned land by virtue of interim injunction orders passed in OS No. 235 of 1995 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge s Court, Kavali and that he could not take delivery of the said land. Of course, the defendant is also impleaded as party to the said suit in OS No. 235 of 1995. But as per condition No. 27 of Ex. Bl the duty cast upon the plaintiff to bring it to the notice of the defendant about suit proceedings and for initiating necessary action. The plaintiff being legally declared as a tenant of the temple in respect of the suit land the plaintiff can defend the suit proceedings in OS No. 235 of 1995 and also can resist the high handed activities of Sreenivasulu Reddy and Obul Reddy. But the plaintiff failed either to defend the suit in OS No. 235 of 1995 or to resist the illegal activities of Sure Srinivasulu Reddy and Obul Reddy. Of course, the plaintiff got issued a notice after lapse of about a year from the date of auction. Admittedly, the auction was conducted on 8-10-1995 and for the first time the plaintiff got issued a notice to defendant on 2-7-1996. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiff has not taken appropriate action and issued notice immediately after the auction having come to know that one Srinivasulu Reddy and Obul Reddy are in possession of auctioned land". ( 6 ) THE Court below in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order, after appreciating the evidence of PW1 and DW1 and also Exs. Al to A4 and Ex. ( 6 ) THE Court below in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the impugned order, after appreciating the evidence of PW1 and DW1 and also Exs. Al to A4 and Ex. Bl, came to the conclusion that there are certain circumstances which go to show that the revision petitioner-plaint iff himself got the suit OS No. 235 of 1995 filed through said Srinivasulu Reddy and Obul Reddy and played mischief to evade maktha amount and ultimately dismissed the suit. ( 7 ) NOW, at the stage of revision, the judgment dated 13-10-2000 made in OS No. 235 of 1995 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali had been placed on record which was partly decreed granting injunction to the second plaintiff, M. Obul Reddy restraining the first defendant i. e. , the Executive Officer of Sri Prasanna Venkateswaraswamy Temple, the respondent herein from interfering with the possession and enjoyment till he is evicted by following due process of law contemplated under the Tenancy Act. In the said suit also PWs. l and 2 and DWI were examined and documents Exs. Al to A8 and Bl to B6 were marked on behalf of the parties. In the light of the subsequent events i. e. , decree passed in OS No. 235 of 1995 and in the fitness of things, the matter has to be remitted back to the Court below to consider all the contentions which would be raised by the respective parties especially taking into consideration the judgment and decree made in OS No. 235 of 1995 on the file of the Junior Civil judge, Kavali. ( 8 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the judgment and decree passed by the Court below is set aside and the matter is remitted back for disposal afresh in accordance with law. Both the parties are permitted to let in further evidence, both oral and documentary, including the judgment and decree passed in OS No. 235 of 1995 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali. ( 9 ) THE revision petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.