CRP Nos. 100 and 105 of 2017. Case: Paluri Gopala Krishna Vs Y. Surya Prakasa Rao and Ors.. High Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)

Case NumberCRP Nos. 100 and 105 of 2017
JudgesM.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.
IssueCivil Procedure Code
Judgement DateJanuary 27, 2017
CourtHigh Court of Andhra Pradesh (India)


M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J.

  1. Since these two Revisions arise out of the same suit, they are being disposed of by this common order.

  2. The petitioner herein is judgment-debtor in O.S. No. 15 of 2010 on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem.

  3. The said suit was filed on the basis of an equitable mortgage for recovery of sum of Rs. 8,53,650/- by respondents against the petitioner.

  4. A preliminary decree was passed on 22.03.2012 in the suit. Final decree was passed on 12.04.2013.

  5. On 25.04.2014, E.P. No. 31 of 2014 was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,35,869/- by way of sale of E.P. Schedule property, belonging to petitioner.

  6. Summons were issued for service on petitioner, and on the basis that such summons were returned unserved, substituted service was ordered by the Court below in a newspaper by name 'Gopi Krishna' newspaper having local circulation. It was accordingly published on 08.10.2015, and since petitioner was absent he was set ex parte and sale of the E.P. Schedule property was ordered on 22.08.2016. On that day, one Toleti Srinivasa Rao of Juvvalapalem quoted a sum of Rs. 30,00,000/- as the bid amount.

  7. On 22.08.2016, the petitioner filed E.A. No. 291 of 2016 to set aside the order dt. 08.10.2015 setting him ex parte on the ground that he was not given adequate opportunity to defend himself, that he did not receive any summons and paper publication was made when he was away on travel to other places to secure employment in agriculture.

  8. Counter-affidavit was filed by 5th respondent opposing this application and taking a plea that petitioner was fully aware of the E.P. proceedings.

  9. By order dt. 02.12.2016, the Court below allowed the said E.A. but directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the decretal amount on or before 09.12.2016.

  10. E.A. No. 410 of 2016 was filed by petitioner to extend the time for at least 30 days to comply with the order passed by the Court below on 28.12.2016.

  11. By a Docket Order passed on 28.12.2016, E.A. No. 410 of 2016 was also dismissed on the ground that the earlier order was not complied with and this showed that petitioner did not act in a bona fide manner.

  12. The order dt. 02.12.2016 in E.A. No. 291 of 2016 is challenged in CRP. No. 100 of 2017; and the order dt. 28.12.2016 in E.A. No. 410 of 2016 in E.A. No. 291 of 2016 is questioned in CRP. No. 105 of 2017.

  13. Heard the counsel for petitioner, and Sri N. Srihari for respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

  14. The counsel for petitioner...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT