Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1405 (AP)

Sheik Babyjan v. Mutyala Veera Raghavulu

2024-10-03

NYAPATHY VIJAY

body2024
ORDER : Nyapathy Vijay, J. The present Civil Revision Petition is filed questioning the Order dated 22.10.2013 in E.A.No.526 of 2013 in E.P.No.123 of 2011 in O.S.No.753 of 2000 passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, West Godavari. 2. As the Respondent No.1 became the highest bidder in an auction conducted by the trial Court on 12.08.2013 for a sum of Rs.3,90,000/-, he deposited 1/4 th of the bid amount on the date of sale i.e., Rs.97,500/- and the balance amount could not be deposited within 15 days time frame due to strike by the Treasury employees in support of Samaikyandhra Andhra Agitation. Therefore, the respondent No.1 filed an application seeking for extension of time on 26.08.2013 stating that though he had obtained challan from the Court, the bank was not accepting the payment under the challan due to non allocation of the number by the treasury. 3. It was in that context, the petitioner for the reasons beyond his control could not deposit the amount within 15 days period and therefore, he sought for extension of time for deposit of the same. 4. The Executing Court after issuing notices to the Decree Holder as well as to the Judgment Debtors, passed impugned Order on 22.10.2013 and granted extension of time till 23.10.2013, failing which, the sale would be set aside. Questioning the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the respondent Nos. 9 and 10 on 10.07.2014. 5. In the revision, the only ground that was urged that the trial Court did not have the jurisdiction to extend the time fixed under Order 21 Rule 85 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 6. This Court after examining the issue is of the opinion that the extension granted by the trial Court cannot be faulted since the respondent No.1 did not deposit the balance amount because of the circumstances beyond his control. It is not a case, where the respondent No.1/auction purchaser was intending to take advantage of the delay due to the Samaikyandhra Agitation. The bonafides of the auction purchaser is apparent as the application for extension was filed even before 15 days period for depositing the amount had lapsed. Apart from that, the petitioners did not contest the application nor disputed the factual scenario prevailing at that point of time. The bonafides of the auction purchaser is apparent as the application for extension was filed even before 15 days period for depositing the amount had lapsed. Apart from that, the petitioners did not contest the application nor disputed the factual scenario prevailing at that point of time. Therefore, the Order of the trial Court cannot be faulted and the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.