IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5142 of 2007 Between: Vankina Gopala Krishna Veeravenkata Satya Vara Prasad … Petitioner And: Jampana Neeladri Raju & another … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5142 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 10.09.2007 in EP No.18 of 2006 in OS No.53 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, wherein, the sale was set aside since the auction purchaser failed to deposit the amount in time and not filed lodgment schedule in time. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent and in execution thereof, brought the schedule property to sale and the same was purchased by the petitioner in a court auction sale held on 23.04.2007 for Rs.2,95,000/-. The petitioner deposited 1/4th of the sale price in a sum of Rs.73,750/- on the date of the sale. The petitioner was required to deposit the balance sale price within 15 days. It is stated that because of the intervention of the summer vacation for the court, the office of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem did not issue lodgment schedule and immediately after reopening of the Courts, the petitioner obtained necessary challan from the office of the court on 02.06.2007 and deposited the balance sale amount of Rs.2,21,250/- i.e., on 02.06.2007. By impugned order, the trial Court however set aside the sale on the ground that the lodgment was not filed in time and the balance sale price was not deposited by the auction purchaser-petitioner in time. 4. The petitioner filed third party affidavit of the Advocate, Smt G. K. Durga Devi, who appeared for the petitioner in the execution court, wherein, she stated that on behalf of the petitioner, she filed lodgment on 07.05.2007, but the lodgment was not numbered as the Court was in summer vacation. She further stated that the same was represented before the execution court at the time of the arguments, but the same was not taken into consideration. Thus, according to the petitioner, though efforts were made to obtain challan for filing lodgment schedule in time, the same was not accepted by the court and therefore, immediately on the reopening date, he applied for challan and deposited the same on the date of the reopening. In support of the said plea, the petitioner also filed lodgment schedule, which was filed before the execution court. The said lodgment schedule shows that the balance price of Rs.2,21,250/- and the value of the non-judicial stamp, a sum of Rs.14,750/- was sought to be deposited by applying for a challan and the said lodgment schedule was presented to the court on 07.05.2007 as seen from the office seal and dated initial of the Superintendent contained thereon. 5. No doubt lodgment schedule filed by him contains the dated stamp of the court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem with the date 07.05.2007, which is within 15 days from the date of auction on 23.04.2007. Curiously, the lodgment schedules which are filed as additional papers in the present revision, do not contain any endorsement by the office of the Court as to whether the lodgment schedule was issued or it was returned because of summer vacation. It is also not known how the two lodgment schedules received by the court and after affixing court seal and putting dated initial by the office Superintendent of the court, came back in to the custody of the petitioner. The affidavit filed by Smt. G. K. Durga Devi, learned counsel for the petitioner in execution court is also silent as to how and under what circumstances the lodgment schedules were taken back by the petitioner. In the said affidavit it is stated that after putting the date and seal of the court, the said lodgments were returned. But there is no endorsement of returning the said lodgment schedules by the office of the court. The affidavit of the learned counsel also states that, though it was orally represented at the time of arguments, the learned Senior Civil Judge failed to consider the same. It is, therefore, a matter to be considered afresh by the execution court and to record a finding as to whether or not there was any mistake on the part of the office of the court, inasmuch as, the very plea of the petitioner is that because of the mistake of the court, balance amount could not be deposited in time. In the event of finding that there was in fact any mistake on the part of the court in not issuing the lodgment schedule, the execution court has to consider and record a finding as to the impact of the said mistake vis-à-vis rules 85 and 86 of Order XXI and record a finding as to whether or not such mistake renders the sale a nullity. 6. In the circumstances, the matter is remanded to the execution court for fresh consideration in the light of the additional material papers, namely, lodgment schedules and also third party affidavit of Smt. G. K. Duraga Devi, (learned counsel for the petitioner in the execution court) filed before this court in the revision and the execution court shall give an opportunity to both sides to adduce such evidence as they may choose to and then pass appropriate orders on merits in accordance with law, without in any way being influenced by the observations made by this court herein above. 7. In the result, the civil revision is disposed of accordingly as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.04.2011 bss