HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.4766 and 4767 of 2009 Dated : 26.10.2009 Civil Revision Petition No.4766 of 2009 Between : Smt.Marru Boni Erramani ….. Petitioner a n d M/s.Sri Laxmi & company ….. Respondent Civil Revision Petition No.4767 of 2009 Between : Jalla Narsaiah ….. Petitioner a n d M/s.Sri Laxmi & company ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.4766 and 4767 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: Heard Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel for the revision petitioner, in both the cases. Both the revision petitions arise out of identical orders in question dismissing the applications by the revision petitioners respectively to declare the respective judgments and decrees in O.S.Nos.2168 of 2003 and 2169 of 2003 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’ Court, Siddipet, as in-executable. The identical contentions of the petitioners in support of the reliefs sought for are based on the original ex parte decrees and judgments having been subsequently set aside before the delivery of possession of the property auctioned in the Executing Court. The petitioners, therefore, desired to take recourse to Sections 47 and 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure to close the execution proceedings and order restitution in respect of the auctioned property. The trial Court referred to the orders of this Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos.4389 and 4390 of 2008 dated 12.11.2008, which directed the Executing Court to take all necessary steps in accordance with the orders of this Court. The Executing Court also noted the issuance of sale certificates to the auction purchasers in pursuance of the orders of this Court and the consequential applications presented by the auction purchasers for delivery of possession of the auctioned properties. The Executing Court considered that the petitions to declare the decrees as in-executable cannot be maintained without making the auction purchasers as parties more so in view of the directions of this Court and another decision reported in Gram Panchayat, Banswada vs. Yashoda and others[1]. The main challenge to the impugned orders is with reference to the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure purportedly making it not necessary to make the auction purchaser as a party. Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel, referred to the language of Section 47 of C.P.C. more particularly explanation (ii) of the said provision under which ‘a purchaser of property at a sale in execution of a decree shall be deemed to be a party to the suit in which the decree is passed’. The learned counsel consequently sought to construe the deeming provision as making it unnecessary to make the auction purchaser a party to the applications in question. Section 47 C.P.C. provides for determination of all questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree arising between the parties to the suit to be decided by the Executing Court and not by a separate suit. It obviously presupposes such question arising between the parties to the suit to be decided in their presence by the Executing Court and not by any separate suit and if an auction purchaser is deemed to be a party to the suit in which a decree is passed by virtue of explanation (ii), as a deemed party to the suit, his presence is also necessary and proper for any determination under sub-section (i). It is all the more so as the question arising in relation to the alleged inexecutability of the decrees after the ex parte decrees were set aside having a direct impact on the rights and interests of the auction purchaser vis a vis the property purchased by him in Court auction. The provisions of Section 47 C.P.C. are to be understood with reference to the plain, unambiguous and grammatical meaning which has to be given to them which indicates rather the necessity and requirement of determining the questions raised in the presence of the auction purchaser and not in his absence. In fact, the decision of this Court in Civil Revision Petition Nos.4389 and 4390 of 2008 following the Supreme Court with reference to Janak Raj v. Gurdial Singh[2] and Madras High Court with reference to Ambujammal v. Thangavelu Chettiar[3] also further strengthens such a conclusion as the policy of the Legislature was cited therein to be to protect the auction purchasers against the vicissitudes of the fortunes of the suits. Therefore, the challenge to the impugned orders cannot be sustained. However, as both the applications in question fail rather solely on the ground of not impleading the auction purchaser as a party, if the revision petitioners are so entitled under law, they are at liberty to pursue their remedies in accordance with law in the presence of the auction purchasers concerning the subject matter of these revision petitions uninfluenced by any observations made in the impugned orders or this order. Subject to above observations, both the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 26th October, 2009 SUR [1] 2009 (2) ALD 413 [2] AIR 1967 Supreme Court 608 [3] AIR 1941 Madras 399