* HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1140 OF 2011 % Dated 19.07.2011 # Konanki Padma ... PETITIONER V. $ Jampani Trilokeswari ...RESPONDENT ! Counsel for the Petitioner : ^ Counsel for the Respondent : < Gist : > Head Note: ? Cases Referred: C/15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1140 OF 2011 Between: Konanki Padma ..... PETITIONER AND Jampani Trilokeswari ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1140 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.165 of 2007 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, against the respondent for recovery of some amount. The suit was decreed on 26.02.2009. The petitioner filed E.P.No.157 of 2009 stating that the respondent did not satisfy the decree. It appears that an item of immovable property was attached. A sale proclamation was issued. The petitioner filed E.A.No.53 of 2011, under Order XXI Rule 72 CPC, with a prayer to permit her to participate in the auction. The application was dismissed by the executing Court through order, dated 02.02.2011. Hence, this revision. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Order XXI Rule 72 CPC mandates that the decree holder in an E.P. cannot participate in the auction of an attached item of property, unless permitted by the Court. Naturally, whenever an application is filed by a decree holder seeking permission to participate in the auction, the Court must be satisfied that such participation would not be detrimental to the interest of the judgment debtor. Unless the decree holder states the reasons on account of which he/she intends to participate in the auction, there is every likelihood of the decree holder taking undue advantage of his position, and causing harm to the judgment debtor. Therefore, permission can be accorded to the decree holder to participate in the auction only when the Court is satisfied that such participation would not be harmful to the interest of the judgment debtor. 4. In the instant case, the petitioner did not state any reason as to why she intends to participate in the auction. The suit appears to be the outcome of a family dispute. The sister of the petitioner was given in marriage to the son of the respondent and that he died in an accident. It is in the course of the settlement of the disputes between the respondent and her daughter-in-law that certain transaction appears to have come into existence. 5. Across the bar, it is stated that an attempt was made to bring the property to sale on earlier occasions and the same did not fructify since the bidders did not come forward. Unless those reasons are pleaded in the petition, there was no occasion for the executing Court to deal with the same. 6. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to file a fresh application indicating the reasons on account of which she intends to participate in the auction. The executing Court shall take into account, the objections, if any, that may be raised by the respondent, before passing any order on such application. The auction of the attached property shall be deferred by four (4) weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J July 19, 2011 Note: Mark L.R. copy. Issue C.C. in 1 week. B/O.MD HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1140 OF 2011 July 19, 2011