THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5771 of 2009 March 30, 2010 Between: Katepalli Venkateswara Rao, S/o.Satyanarayana And another … Petitioners And Sri Garigipati Raghava Rao,S/o.Rattaiah And another ... Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5771 of 2009 ORDER: First respondent filed O.S.No.72 of 2004 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Chintalapudi, for recovery of money from the second respondent. The suit was decreed for an amount exceeding Rs.1,00,000/-. The property of second respondent was brought to sale. While the Court auction was at the stage of confirmation, petitioners herein who are sons of Judgment Debtor filed E.A.No.58 of 2008 under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, claiming interest in the property attached and sold. They also filed application to raise attachment. When the matter was coming up for enquiry, they filed E.A.No.44 of 2009 to send an unregistered agreement of sale dated 10.5.1998 to the Registrar for impounding and levying proper stamp duty. But no such agreement of sale was filed. Therefore Court below by order dated 19.6.2009 dismissed the same with costs of Rs.500/-. Petitioners did not pay the costs but they chose to file E.A.No.70 of 2009 yet again praying the Court below to send an unregistered partition list dated 01.4.1994 to the District Registrar for impounding and levying stamp duty. They contended that there was a family partition between the second respondent and petitioners under which the property, which was sold in execution of the decree, fell to their shares. By an order dated 25.7.2009, the Court below dismissed the application observing that without paying costs, to get over the earlier order, petitioners filed E.A.No.70 of 2009. The counsel for petitioners vehemently contends that the Court below ought to have considered E.A.No.70 of 2009 on its own merits and mere non- payment of costs in the earlier application is not a bar to file application. This Court has given anxious consideration to the matter and perused the records. It appears that the petitioners initially took a plea that they purchased property under an agreement of sale. They filed E.A.No.44 of 2009 to send the unregistered agreement of sale to Registrar for impounding and levying proper stamp duty. When the Court below dismissed the same with costs on the ground that no such document was filed, they chose to file another application with different plea of sending unregistered partition list to the Registrar for impounding. In those circumstances, the Court below was justified in dismissing the application. The civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) March 30, 2010 YS