Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Putta Satyanarayana vs Garapati Sri Lakshmi on 24 December, 2025
1
APHC010017532020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3560]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 510/2020
Between:
1. PUTTA SATYANARAYANA, S/O.KASI VISWANADHAM, AGED
ABOUT 40 YEARS, OCC- BUSINESS, R/O.NEAR RMC GROUNDS,
VENKAT NAGAR, KAKINADA, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
AND
1. GARAPATI SRI LAKSHMI, W/O.GANGADHARA RAO, AGED- 48
YEARS, OCC-HOUSE WIFE. R/O.DOOR NO.9-6-7, SIVAJIPALEM,
VISAKHAPATNAM DISTRICT.
2. VANGAPANDU SRINIVASA RAO, S/O.KRISHNA MURTHY, AGED
ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCC-BUSINESS, R/O.PEDDADA VILLAGE,
PEDAPUDI MANDAL, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT(S):
Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the
circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be
pleased to Memorandum of Civil Revision petition to this Hon'ble Court
against order passed in E.A.No.49 '2019 in E.P.No.8/2016 in
O.S.No.263/2014, dt.7-11-2019 on the file of the court of the IV Addl. District
Judge, Kalcinada, East Godavari District
IA NO: 1 OF 2020
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated
in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to
stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.8/2016 O.S.No.263/2014 on the file of
2
the court of the IV Addl. District Judge, Kakinada, East Godavari District in the
interest of justice and to pass
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. K VENKATESH
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. T V JAGGI REDDY
3
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 510/2020
O R D E R:
1. The instant Civil Revision Petition (for short C.R.P) has been preferred against an Order dated 07.11.2019 passed by the learned IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada in E.A.No.49 of 2019 in E.P.No.8 of 2016 in O.S.No.263 of 2014.
2. Brief facts of the matter are that- the 1st respondent got a decree in O.S.No.263 of 2014 and he filed an E.P proceedings vide E.P.No.8 of 2016. The petitioner herein being a third party has filed an application before the Executive Court under Section 73 of Code of Civil Procedure to grant rateable distribution of the sale proceeds among the petitioner and the decree-holder. The learned Court below after hearing the parties has dismissed the petition. Hence, the instant Civil Revision Petition (for short C.R.P).
3. Perused the impugned our passed by the learned Court below. It appear from the impugned order that the learned Court below has followed the procedure established in Section 73(1)(c) of Code of Civil Procedure. There are four conditions which should be fulfilled before rateable distribution of the sale proceeds. They are as follows:
"Section 73(1)(c): Where any immovable property is sold in execution of a decree ordering its sale for the discharge of an incumbrance thereon, the proceeds of sale shall be applied -4
First, in defraying the expenses of the sale;
Secondly, in discharging the amount due under the decree;
Thirdly, in discharging the interest and principal monies due on subsequent incumbrances (if any); and Fourthly, rateably among the holders of decrees for the payment of money against the judgment-debtor, who have, prior to the sale of the property, applied to the Court which passed the decree ordering such sale for execution of such decrees, and have no obtained satisfaction thereof."
4. In this present suit it appears that the decree-holder/1st respondent had got a decree for an amount of Rs.32,41,210/- after auction bid the sale amount appears to be Rs.22,15,000/-. Therefore, auction amount is below to decretal amount which was warranted. It further appears from the order that on the date of auction dated 05.11.2018 the application filed by the decree- holder was already allowed there are nothing left for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds. The learned Court below had dismissed the application on the above grounds.
5. On perusal of the entire facts and circumstances and also the impugned order, it appears that the impugned order is a speaking and reasonable order. The reason for dismissal of the petition has been specifically set out in the order itself. Accordingly, I find no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
6. In the result, the instant Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merit, no costs.
5
Consequently, pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
______________________ SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J Dated: 24.12.2025.
SNI 6 143 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 510/2020 DATED: 24.12.2025 SNI