THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1194 OF 2011 Between: Jakku Ramesh …Petitioner A n d Eareddi Narsimha Reddy and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1194 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.03.2010 wherein the said unregistered plaint in R/SCF No.1548/2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, was rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. None appeared for the respondents/defendants. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed the suit against the respondents for declaration of title in respect of the plaint schedule property and for recovery of possession and also for recovery of Rs.60,000/- towards past profits for three years and for future mesne profits at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per year. By the impugned order, the trial Court rejected the plaint as not maintainable in view of Section XLVII CPC which mandates that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, shall be determined by the executing Court and not by a separate suit. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit land in a Court auction sale in E.P.No.26 of 1999 in O.S.No.374 of 1997 which was filed by one Marka Raja Mallaiah, who obtained money decree against the defendants. In the said execution proceedings, the suit land was attached on 05.05.1999 and subsequently it was sold in a Court auction on 31.12.2005 and sale certificate was issued in favour of plaintiff on 30.01.2006. It is alleged that even before delivery of possession was taken, the 1st defendant/judgment debtor sold the suit land in favour of the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed dated 06.01.2006. Questioning the validity of the said sale, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title and also for recovery of possession. 4. Section 47 CPC states that all questions arising between the parties to the suit in which the decree was passed, or their, representatives, and relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree, shall be determined by the Court executing the decree and not by a separate suit. Clause b of Explanation II states that all questions relating to delivery of possession of such property to such purchaser or his representative shall be deemed to be questions relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree within the meaning of this section. In the present case, the question sought to be raised in the plaint is not in respect of delivery of possession pursuant to the Court auction sale. According to the plaintiff, even before he could take delivery of possession, the 1st defendant/ judgment debtor has sold away the property to the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed dated 06.01.2006. The plaintiff is questioning the validity of the said transaction and seeking declaration of his title and recovery of possession from D-2 who is said to have been put in possession by D-1 under the sale deed. The plaintiff is also seeking the relief of recovery of mesne profits, past and future. It cannot, therefore, be said that the dispute raised in the present suit is one which entirely falls within the scope and ambit of Section 47 CPC. Consequently, it follows that the suit is not barred by any law so as to render the plaint liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. It is, however, open to the respondents/defendants to raise the issue relating to maintainability of the suit at an appropriate stage and the Court shall deal with the said contention on its own merits without in any way being influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove. 5. The impugned order, rejecting the plaint is, therefore, set aside and the trial Court is directed to register the suit, if otherwise in order. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 10th November, 2011 Lrkm.