THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5563 of 2005 DATED: 25.08.2009 Between: R.Bayya Reddy. .. Petitioner. And The Estate of Sri R.Venkata Reddy, S/o. Maddi Reddy and other shareholders, Plaintiff and defendants in O.S.No.56/1981 On the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalli, rep. by the Receiver Sri R.Sreenivasa Sastry, Advocate. .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5563 of 2005 ORDER: A receiver is appointed for administration of the properties in O.S.No.56 of 1981 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Madanapalle. He has put some of the items of suit schedule to auction from the year 1984 onwards. The petitioner herein emerged as highest bidder for some years. Alleging that he did not pay the lease amount for the year 1988-89, though he emerged as highest bidder, the respondent filed O.S.No.133 of 1991 in the Court of Principal District Munsif, Madanapalle, for recovery of amount. The petitioner denied that he emerged as highest bidder. Through its judgment dated 16.08.1996, the trial Court decreed the suit. Aggrieved thereby, A.S.No.93 of 2000 was filed in the Court of VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, and the same was dismissed on 16.02.2005. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri S.S.Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the receiver was served with notice, he did not choose to enter appearance. The suit was for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,350/-. It was pleaded that the petitioner emerged as highest bidder for Rs.15,050/- for the year 1988-89. In view of the denial of that allegation by the petitioner, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1. Whether the defendant is not the highest bidder and has been raised any crops in the suit lands? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount as prayed for? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the respondent, P.Ws.1 to 6 and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. Except examining himself as DW.1, the petitioner did not adduce any other evidence. The trial Court examined from different angles. Firstly, it was verified whether the petitioner participated in the auction and whether he emerged as highest bidder. The petitioner did not dispute his participation in the auction. Ex.A2 revealed that his bid was for a sum of Rs.15,050/-. The other participants also were examined and they agreed with the contention of the respondent. Therefore, a clear finding was recorded to the effect that the petitioner emerged as highest bidder. Another angle, from which, it examined the matter, was to see whether the petitioner cultivated the land. Three to four witnesses examined on behalf of the respondent clearly stated that it was the petitioner who cultivated the land, at the relevant point of time. Adangals were also filed. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that concurrent findings recorded by the trial Court suffer from legal or factual infirmity. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. It is directed that if the petitioner pays the decretal amount within three months from today, the costs awarded against him by the trial Court and lower appellate Court shall stand set aside. Otherwise they will remain intact. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J 25.08.2009 Note: Furnish CC in one week B/o v v