IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD SATURDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.1408 of 2011 Between: Puttu Venkata Ramana Murthy … Petitioner and Puttu Kalappa and others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.1408 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Though the notice is serviced on the respondents 3 and 4, neither they represented in person nor there is any vakalath has been filed on their behalf. C.R.P. MP. No.2003 of 2011 has been filed by the petitioner seeking to fix the time for disposal of E.A. Nos.484 of 2008 and 485 of 2008 in E.P. No.115 of 2007 in O.S. No.188 of 2005 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet. The case of the petitioner is that he is the auction purchaser. O.S. No.188 of 2005 was filed by the 2nd respondent herein seeking for recovery of certain amounts from the respondents 3 and 4. Pending consideration of the suit, he filed an application seeking for attachment before the judgment and the same was allowed for attachment of the property in respect of Acs.3.43 cents in Survey No.93 and 94, Patta No.378, situated at Sullurpet. Thereafter, the said suit was decreed on 01.03.2007. While so, the plaintiff, respondent No.2 herein, filed E.P. No.115 of 2007 and the same was ordered, pursuant to which, on 12.09.2008 auction was conducted for a value of Rs.2,15,000/- and thus the petitioner was stood as an auction purchaser. While so, the 1st respondent filed E.A. No.484 and 485 of 2008 seeking for setting aside the sale and also claiming half of the share in the attached property. While so, the petitioner filed E.A. No.648 of 2008 seeking for impleadment in the E.P. as an auction purchaser and the said E.A. was allowed on 08.06.2009. The 1st respondent filed chief affidavit on 10.09.2009 and in the month of December, 2010, he was put to corss examination and the said E.As. are coming up further evidence of the 1st respondent but there is no development in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he being an auction purchaser having deposited the auction amount, he is not in a position to enjoy the property since the possession of the property put to auction is not delivered to him. Further, the 1st respondent by filing the petition after petition trying to drag on the matter unreasonably. Therefore, he submits that the Court below may be directed to fix the date for hearing the matter and to dispose of the said E.As. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, decree holder, would submit that his money is in lock and though the property in question was put to auction and being a decree holder, he is not in a position to enjoy the fruits of the decree. Therefore, he has no objection for ordering the relief as sought for in the revision petition. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent, who filed E.A. Nos.484 and 485 of 2008, would submit that he is having half of the share in the property put to in the auction. Therefore, he submits that he is not responsible for undergoing the matter for adjournments and he is prepared to cooperate in the matter for early disposal of the case, because he is also claiming the right over the property put to auction. It is to be noticed that the petitioner is not aggrieved by any of the order passed by the Court below to contend that such an order is erroneous or illegal but requested to pass the order as sought for by him by exercising the powers vested under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. But the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that he being the auction purchaser having deposited the auction amount and he is not in a position to enjoy the fruits of the auction and therefore, he is aggrieved. This Court is not in a position to appreciate the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that this Court is not aware that under what circumstances the matter is being underwent for several adjournments and who is responsible for such adjournments. Therefore, the relief, as sought for by the petitioner in this revision stating the facts and circumstances of the case, cannot be granted. However, it is needless to mention that it is always open for him to file an appropriate application before the Court below for early disposal of a particular application. With the above, C.R.P. MP. No.2003 of 2011 and the revision petition are liable to be dismissed and accordingly, the same are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH Date: 27.08.2011 LSK