IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5956/2009 & 732/2010 Between: Nerelle China Venkata Subba Rao ..... PETITIONER AND Gunda Anka Rao and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.5956/2009 & 732/2010 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner herein is the Judgment Debtor, who suffered a decree for recovery of money. As the decretal amount was not paid, the Decree Holder filed E.P. for the sale of the E.P.schedule property, belonging to the petitioner herein. It is stated that the sale proclamation was made and the E.P.schedule property was also sold in public auction. It is stated that to set aside the sale, the petitioner filed E.A.444/2008 and in that E.A. petitioner filed two applications i.e. E.A.Nos.426 and 427/2009 to reopen E.A.444/2008 and to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner on the ground that E.P.schedule property was sold assuming that it was a single storied building, but in fact, it was two-storied building. Therefore, to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner, he filed E.A.427/2009 to note down the physical features with the photos of the suit locality and to prepare a plan. It is stated that actually the E.P.schedule property is a residential house, consisting of two stairs i.e. ground floor and first floor of RCC building. It was sold assuming that it was only single storied building. No material has been placed either before the Court below or before this Court about the proclamation of the sale and schedule of the sold property. If the sale is made contrary to the Rules, and if any fraud has been played, it is for the petitioner to establish the same by adducing appropriate evidence. But the Advocate-Commissioner cannot be appointed to note down the physical features with the photos of the suit locality. The petitioner does not even say what exactly he wanted to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. Therefore, I do not see any justification in filing the said two applications. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, these two Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. However, the Court below may independently consider the contentions and other evidence adduced by the petitioner, justifying his claim to set aside the sale in the pending E.A. and dispose of the E.A. as expeditiously as possible, without any undue delay, in accordance with law. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 01.07.2011 Dsr