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

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 232 · Decided: 04-04-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 232 
U. SOWRI REDDY (DEAD) BY LRS. 
v. 
\ 
B. SUSEELAMMA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6322 of 2004) 
APRIL 4, 2011 
[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 KAT JU, 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. 
c 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
record. 
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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.