HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.247 OF 2011 DATE:04-03-2011 BETWEEN Chalamalastti Gopinath …Petitioner AND Thota Saraiah …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.247 OF 2011 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed by the judgment debtor against the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Machilipatnam in dismissing E.A.G.L.No.4344 of 2010 in E.P.No.566 of 2004 in O.S.No.373 of 2004 filed under Section 47 and Order 21 Rules 66,90,99 and 101 of C.P.C. for setting aside the sale certificate dated 8.5.2007 by allowing the redelivery of possession of the schedule property to the extent of half of the share to the petitioner. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the petitioner himself stated that during the second week of October, 2007 when himself and his wife went to Chinnapuram to his mother’s house for Dasara festival, his wife came to know through her husband’s brother through whom he got the schedule land cultivate that the respondent obtained a decree by filing a suit in O.S.No.373 of 2003 against him, filed the present E.P., got the property sold in execution, obtained the sale certificate and obtained delivery of the same. Therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Article 127 of the Limitation Act prescribes 60 days period for setting aside the sale in execution of decree including any such application by a judgment debtor. The judgment debtor-petitioner herein on his own stated that he came to know about the ex parte decree and obtaining the sale certificate only in October, 2007, but the present application was filed only on 2.10.2010, which was returned by the office with an objection how the petition is maintainable and whether the petition is in time under the Limitation Act. But the petitioner re-submitted the said petition stating that when the dispossession is claimed without knowledge, the petition under Section 47 C.P.C. is maintainable and since the dispossession of the petitioner is pleaded, under Article 64 and 65 of the Limitation Act, the petition is to be treated as a suit and therefore, the petition is within time. The lower Court by the impugned docket order rejected the said petition as referred to above. Since the petition itself is filed for setting aside the sale certificate and for re-delivery of possession of the property, the same has to be filed within 60 days. Therefore, the lower Court rightly rejected the impugned E.A. as not maintainable. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 04, 2011 Tsr.