THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4351 of 2009 Date of Order 05-12-2009 Between Chikkam Devika Rani …Petitioner And 1.Seetharama Swamy Temple rep.by its Trust Board Chairman, Kedarasetty Vallabhayya and another. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.4351 of 2009 order: This revision is directed against the order of the Senior Civil Judge, Pithapuram dated 12-08-2009 in dismissing I.A.No.287 of 2009 in O.S.No.142 of 2005 filed under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint. The plaintiff claiming to be in possession of plaint schedule property filed the suit to declare the sale held in E.P.No.25 of 2003 in O.S.No.208 of 2001 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram in respect of plaint schedule property is vitiated by material irregularities. The 2nd defendant, who is the auction purchaser in E.P., obtained sale certificate and got only paper delivery. The plaintiff was in continuous possession of the plaint schedule property from the date of purchase. Therefore, the 2nd defendant/auction purchaser is not entitled to raise any crop. In the plaint it is categorically asserted that the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property on 26-07-1997. The 1st defendant obtained a decree on 07-112002 against the plaintiff in O.S.No.208 of 2001 and the 2nd respondent was declared as highest bidder in E.P.No.25 of 2003 in O.S.No.208 of 2001 in the auction held on 17-06-2004. During the pendency of the proceedings plaintiff filed E.A.(SR) No.2673 of 2004 under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC to set aside the sale which was dismissed on 25-03-2005. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner/plaintiff filed E.A.(SR) No.1579 of 2005 for restoration of EA (SR) No.2673 of 2004 which was dismissed on 08-08- 2005 and the same was confirmed in C.R.P.No.4213 of 2005. Therefore, confirmation of sale pending the above proceedings is not valid. In the said suit, present I.A. is filed to add the following matter as para-7(a) in the plaint: “The amount sought to be recovered by the 1st defendant by proceedings against the plaint schedule property is about Rs.55,000/- only and the plaint schedule property will fetch more than 6 lakhs. The Court Amin also valued it Rs.1,35,000/-. The 1st defendant has to proceed against the property, which is sufficient to satisfy the decree amount. In the public auction held on 07-06- 2004 before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court an extent of Ac.0.54 cts. was sold for Rs.1,76,000/-. About 20 cts. in the suit schedule property would have satisfy the decree amount. With a view to harass and cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant put for sale of entire plaint schedule property, instead of sufficient portion. Thereby, the 1st defendant committed fraud upon the Court.” The lower court rightly rejected the said I.A. on the ground that on dismissal of E.A. and CRP the petitioner/plaintiff came forward with the present IA for amendment of the plaint and if the same is allowed, the entire nature of the suit will be changed, as the E.P. proceedings were already conducted and sale was confirmed. Further, once the E.A. filed by the plaintiff to set aside the sale was dismissed, if any irregularity in conduct of sale is canvassed, the same has to be determined by the executing Court on an application filed under Section 47 CPC but not by way of separate suit. In view of the same, impugned order passed by the lower court do not suffer from any illegality warranting interference. CRP fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 05-12-2009 Murthy