THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.507 of 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is misconceived. It is directed against the order dated 08.02.2011 of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram, rejecting I.A.No.100 of 2011 in I.A.No.1601 of 2010 in O.S.No.297 of 2010. The suit is filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale executed by one Mudunuri Appalaraju, whose legal representatives are respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein. It would appear that the suit schedule property in O.S.No.297 of 2010 was furnished as collateral for a sales tax (VAT) liability of the son-in-law of late Mudunuri Appalaraju and to enforce the tax dues, the suit schedule property is brought to sale by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer. Against the sale proceedings, the petitioner filed W.P.No.27213 of 2010 and apparently by an interim order dated 02.11.2010, this Court in the said writ petition, directed the revision petitioner to deposit 1/3rd of the tax liability within a specified time and the balance 2/3rd amount within a further time stipulated in the said order. The petitioner deposited the first installment of 1/3rd of the arrears owed to the tax authorities, but failed to deposit the balance 2/3rd amount. The petitioner states to have preferred an application for extension of time in the said writ petition. While so, the petitioner moved I.A.No.1601 of 2010 in O.S.No.297 of 2010 seeking interdiction of the auction process by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer and the said interlocutory application was adjourned to 03.03.2011. Since on account of the failure of the petitioner in depositing the balance 2/3rd amount of tax arrears, the tax officials were proceeding with sale of the suit schedule property, the petitioner moved I.A.No.100 of 2011 before the Court below seeking advancement of hearing of I.A.No.1601 of 2010. The said application was rejected by the order impugned. Inter alia, the Court below rejected the application on the ground that in view of the order of this Court in W.P.No.27213 of 2010, there appears no justification for advancing the hearing of I.A.No.1601 of 2010 and also for the reason that the petitioner, having knowledge of the auction notice of 17.01.2011, failed to take appropriate and expeditious action. In the totality of circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that the relief sought in I.A.No.1601 of 2010 is in substance for variation of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.27213 of 2010 as observed by the Court below, this Court discerns no justification for granting relief under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There appears no error in the application of law or exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting interference by this Court and the revision is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (GODA RAGHURAM, J) 18th February, 2011 GHN