HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.3233 OF 2008 Dt.18.11.2010 Between: Karanam Venkata Krishna Rao and others ..Petitioners And Ranga Sai Babu and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.3233 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order passed in E.A.No.134 of 2007 in E.P.No.26 of 2004 in I.A.No.495 of 1999 in O.S.No.34 of 1978 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Yellamanchili, dated 19.12.2007. The 1st respondent herein is the so-called auction purchaser and third party to the suit. It is stated that the 2nd respondent herein is the decree holder, who filed E.P.No.26 of 2004 against the judgment debtor for realization of the decretal amount and the court below after attaching the property conducted auction on 4.10.2007 and the 1st respondent herein participated in the auction to purchase the said property for a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- and an amount of Rs.8,25,000/- towards 1/4th of the auction amount was paid and the remaining 3/4th amount was due to be paid within four weeks. It is stated that in the meanwhile the judgment debtors paid the decretal amount and therefore the sale was set aside by order 31.10.2007 and the E.P. was closed. The auction purchaser filed E.A.No.134 of 2007 permitting him to withdraw the amount deposited by him i.e., Rs.10,89,045/- i.e., 1/4th of the auction amount of Rs.8,25,000/-, poundage of Rs.99,045/- and 5% commission to be paid to the auction purchaser. Counter has been filed by the judgment debtor denying the allegations stating that the auction purchaser defaulted in payment of 3/4th auction amount as well as necessary stamps and therefore, he cannot recover the said amount and he is not entitled to recover the said amount. The court below after considering the rival contentions passed the impugned order allowing the claim of the auction purchaser directing to issue cheque for Rs.10,89,045/- in favour of the auction purchaser. When the judgment debtors have paid the entire auction amount, the sale was set aside and the auction purchaser was entitled to get back his own amount. The sale was set-aside only on the ground that the judgment debtors have paid the entire sale amount. If that be so, it cannot be said that the auction purchaser was at fault and the court below rightly issued order for the said amount. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise in the order impugned. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 18.11.2010 kpr