THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.827 OF 2010 JUDGMENT: 1. This appeal is filed under Order XLIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), assailing the order dated 20.07.2010 in E.A.No.299 of 2010 in E.A.No.743 of 2006 in E.P.No.66 of 2003 in O.S.No.152 of 1988 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam. 2. E.A.No.229 of 2010 is filed under Section 151 read with Order XXI Rule 106 CPC to set aside the dismissal order dated 28.06.2010 passed against the appellant’s firm and to restore the matter permitting him to proceed further. The matter was dismissed on the ground that in spite of giving several adjournments, the appellant-petitioner was not prosecuting the execution application. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant has given cogent reasons for not being present on the day when the execution application was called and therefore, the Executing Court ought to have given an opportunity to contest the case and hence, prays to set aside the same. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent contends that the appellant has no right over the property sold and therefore, only to drag on the proceedings, the present appeal is filed and there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The first respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.66 of 2003 against the second respondent/judgment debtor for realization of decretal amount by way of sale of Execution Petition Schedule Property. Sale was conducted on 19.06.2006 and the petitioner/claimant filed E.A.No.743 of 2006 at the time of confirmation of sale, claiming that it has interest and right over the Execution Petition Schedule Property having purchased the same under an agreement of sale. 6. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioner has taken several adjournments from 22.06.2009 to 05.03.2010. On 28.06.2010, the Execution Application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not evincing any interest in proceeding further. Even after positing the matter “For Dismissal’, the petitioner has not evinced any interest on 31.05.2010. On behalf of the decree holder, full satisfaction memo was filed in the Execution Petition stating that both the decree holder and the judgment debtor settled the matter and the decree holder received the entire decretal amount from the judgment debtor and the full satisfaction of the decree was recorded. 7. The case of the appellant is that he purchased the E.P. schedule property under agreement of sale and he filed a suit in O.S.No.199 of 1993 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, for enforcement of the specific performance of the contract, but the said suit was dismissed for default on 25.07.2010. No steps have been taken to set aside the dismissal of the suit. As on today, the petitioner is not having any right, title or interest over the Execution Petition Schedule Property. Therefore, the question of adjudication of dispute with regard to title based on agreement of sale does not arise. 8. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. _____________ (K.C.BHANU, J) 10th October 2011 RRB