THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.4117 of 2009 Date: 10.09.2009 Between: Madakasira Larger Sized Coop. Society, Rep., by its Chief Executive Officer. …Petitioner And S.J.Subrahmanyam and another. …Respondnets THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.4117 of 2009 O R D E R: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 06.08.2009 in C.M.A.No.2 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur confirming the order dated 29.04.2009 in E.A.No. 240 of 2004 in E.P.No.6 of 2001 in O.S.No.2 of 1989 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The first respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed O.S.No.2 of 1989 for recovery of money due from the revision petitioner/defendant. The suit was decreed as prayed for and pursuant thereto, the decree holder/first respondent herein filed E.P.No.6 of 2001 for sale of the E.P. schedule property. The execution petition was allowed and pursuant thereto, property (25 cents of land situated in Sy.No.411.4) was sold in Court auction held on 07.09.2004 for a sum of Rs.2,04,000/-. The 2nd respondent herein is the auction purchaser. While so, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor filed E.A.No.240 of 2004 under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC to set aside the sale held on 07.09.2004 alleging that the property in question was grossly undervalued. It was also alleged that neither the property was properly described nor its value was mentioned in the sale proclamation as well as the publication and moreover whereas the date of sale was mentioned as 06.09.2004 in the proclamation, the sale was actually held on 07.09.2004. Thus, it was contended that the sale was vitiated and liable to be set aside. The said application was opposed by the decree holder by filing a detailed counter denying the allegations made by the judgment debtor/revision petitioner. The auction purchaser/the 2nd respondent herein also filed a separate counter affidavit denying the allegations. After hearing both the parties, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur by order dated 29.04.2009, dismissed E.A.No.240 of 2004. Though the judgment debtor/revision petitioner preferred C.M.A.No.2 of 2009 in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hindupur, the same was also dismissed by order dated 06.08.2009. Hence, the present revision petition by the judgment debtor. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent, who entered appearance at the stage of admission itself. Before the executing Court, on behalf of the judgment debtor, P.W.1 was examined and Ex.A.1-valuation certificate was marked. Decree holder got himself examined as R.W.1 and auction purchaser gave evidence as R.W.2 and on their behalf, Exs.B.1 to B.8 documents were marked. On appreciation of the evidence, the executing Court while holding that the objections raised by the judgment debtor were not tenable, declined to set aside the sale. As could be seen, the executing Court found that Ex.A.1- valuation certificate was issued by the sub-registrar, Madakasira on 10.12.2007, whereas, the sale was held long back on 07.09.2004. As per Ex.A.1, the cost of the construction of the building was shown as Rs.9,57,460/- and the cost of the site was shows as Rs.6,22,908/-. Thus, under Ex.A.1, the total value was certified as Rs.18,80,368/-, whereas as per the valuation certificate filed along with E.A.No.240 of 2004, dated 09.09.2004 the total value of the property was shown as Rs.5,48,000/-. However, except the Secretary of the Judgment Debtor-society, who gave evidence as P.W.1, no other independent witness was examined nor any other evidence could be produced to establish the value shown in Ex.A.1-certificate. The Court below, also found that though the judgment debtor was served with sale notice dated 04.03.2004 and the terms were also settled, the judgment debtor failed to raise any objection and he did not give his valuation at the time of settlement of the terms. No justifiable reason could be offered by the judgment debtor for its failure to do so. The appellate Court, on appreciation of the evidence, further held that the auction purchaser was not related to the decree holder nor any case could be made out to establish the alleged collusion between the auction purchaser and the decree holder. In the circumstances, fraud on the Court alleged by the judgment debtor is absolutely without any basis. The irregularities in the sale proclamation pointed out by the judgment debtor are also not material irregularities and no case has been made out to show that the said irregularities had resulted in substantial injury to the interest of the judgment debtors. It is borne out of the record that the 2nd respondent-auction purchaser had participated in the auction and purchased property in Court auction among the contesting bidders. It is also found that the upset price was actually fixed by the executing Court at Rs.1,55,000/- and sufficient bidders had participated in the auction and the 2nd respondent had become the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.2,04,000/- . Despite notice, the revision petitioner/judgment debtor failed to raise any objections before the settlement of terms either with regard to value of the property or with regard to the alleged discrepancy in the sale proclamation. Admittedly, the property was sold for much higher price than the upset price fixed by the Court. In the circumstances, interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ G.ROHINI,J Date: 10-09-2009 KLP