Or.21, Rule 97 , Sec.47 & Sec.151 of CPC - claim petition -For the petitioner she got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 whereas on behalf of the respondents no witness was examined and no documents were marked. - In both the earlier claim petitions it was held by the Court that the E.P schedule property belonged to Amalakanti Ratnam. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Against that order, the CMA was preferred which was dismissed making same observations aggrieved by which the present CRP has been filed. -a person not having any saleable interest in the property to question the corresponding sale.- Emphatically Order XXI Rule 90(2) CPC clearly postulates that the question of sale of property can be raised by a person who got actual interest in the property. Hence the petition is not tenable.-Section 47 CPC does not deal with the question of material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale whereas that aspect is to be dealt with under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC only. On the other hand if the grounds alleged do not lead to matters in publishing or conducting the sale but are anterior to, or subsequent to sale the corresponding application is outside the purview of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC and comes within the purview of Section 47 CPC. - For the purpose of finding out whether particular application comes under Order XXI Rule 90 or Section 47 CPC, the substance of the application must be taken into consideration. - What is important in the present context is that the petitioner is questioning the irregularity or illegality in publishing the notice of the sale of the property only by reason of which the matter comes only within the purview or Order XXI Rule 90 CPC. On the other hand when the petitioner is not having any saleable interest in the property, he or she cannot have any locus standi to question the sale of the property.-the Civil Revision Petition isdismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) payableby the petitioner to the third respondent-auction purchaser in pursuing the frivolous litigation -2015 A.P.(2013) MSK LAW REPORTS


Or.21, Rule 97 , Sec.47 & Sec.151 of CPC - claim petition -For the petitioner she got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 whereas on behalf of the respondents no witness was examined and no documents were marked.  - In both the earlier claim petitions it was held by the Court that the E.P schedule property belonged to Amalakanti Ratnam. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Against that order, the CMA was preferred which was dismissed making same observations aggrieved by which the present CRP has been filed. -a person not having any saleable interest in the property to question the corresponding sale. Emphatically Order XXI Rule 90(2) CPC clearly postulates that the question of sale of property can be raised by a person who got actual interest in the property.  Hence the petition is not tenable.-Section 47 CPC does not deal with the question of material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale whereas that aspect is to be dealt with under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC only. On the other hand if the grounds alleged do not lead to matters in publishing or conducting the sale but are anterior to, or subsequent to sale the corresponding application is outside the purview of Order XXI Rule 90 CPC and comes within the purview of Section 47 CPC.  For the purpose of finding out whether particular application comes under Order XXI Rule 90 or Section 47 CPC, the substance of the application must be taken into consideration.  What is important in the present context is that the petitioner is questioning the irregularity or illegality in publishing the notice of the sale of the property only by reason of which the matter comes only within the purview or Order XXI Rule 90 CPC.  On the other hand when the petitioner is not having any saleable interest in the property, he or she cannot have any locus standi to question the sale of the property. The circumstances of the case make it very clear that
the auction purchaser suffered a lot to enjoy the fruits of sale held in 1998.The family members of the petitioner and also the petitioner successfully thwarted his endeavour to achieve his object having filed various petitions referred and thereby placing necessary hurdles.In the result, for the above reasons, the Civil Revision Petition isdismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) payableby the petitioner to the third respondent-auction purchaser in pursuing the
frivolous litigation within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the third respondent-auction purchaser can realize it as per law. - 2015 A.P.(2013) MSK LAW REPORTS.

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)