HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.531 OF 2009 DATE:11-03-2011 BETWEEN Surapaneni Parvathi …Petitioner AND Bolla Sailaja …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.531 OF 2009 ORDER: Petitioner-decree holder filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India to revise the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, dated 22.7.2008 passed in E.A.No.408 of 2007 in E.P.No.418 of 2002 in O.S.No.229 of 1999 whereunder it was held that further examination of R.W.2 on behalf of petitioner-decree holder is not necessary and the petitioner-decree holder can be permitted to examine himself as a witness and the advocates on record can be allowed to submit their respective arguments after completion of trial. First respondent herein filed a claim petition to set aside the attachment of the suit schedule property and to stay the sale of the attached property alleging that she purchased the schedule property in the open auction conducted by the Nandamuru Visala Sahakara Parapathi Sangam Limited, Nandamuru, Pedana Mandal on 20.12.2006 for a sum of Rs.1,28,000/- and the Special Officer of K.D.C.C. Bank, Machilipatnam issued form No.9-A certificate in her favour to remit an amount of Rs.6,400/- towards cost of non-judicial stamp papers with the K.D.C.C. Bank and on issuing form No.10 on non-judicial stamp in her favour as sale certificate, she has been in possession and enjoyment as absolute owner over the said property, which is the subject-matter of E.P. schedule property, and therefore, her claim has to be adjudicated. Contesting the said claim, the petitioner-decree holder filed a counter stating that the claim petitioner- first respondent herein is none other than the daughter-in-law of the judgment debtor-second respondent herein and the alleged sale is a collusive sale and therefore, he may be permitted to examine the Special Officer, who conducted the sale to know whether the alleged sale conducted is valid or not. The lower Court by the impugned order held that the petitioner- decree holder is not entitled to question the manner of conducting public auction by K.D.C.C. Bank, Machilipatnam to find out collusiveness or otherwise in between the said Bank and judgment debtor and the Court will decide the validity of said sale in favour of the claim petitioner with reference to attachment orders made in the matter. Inasmuch as Section 121 of the A.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 bars the jurisdiction of the civil Court to go into the validity of the sale conducted by the K.D.C.C. Bank, the only issue before the lower Court is whether the court attachment is earlier to the alleged sale and if so, whether the attachment will prevail over the alleged sale or not and the said issue is a matter to be decided even without further examination of the Special Officer-R.W.2. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. Petitioner is at liberty to adduce evidence to establish that the sale of the property after court attachment is invalid and no rights will accrue to the claim petitioner. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. MARCH 11, 2011 Tsr.