Landmarq

IN THE COURT OF THE …………..

                               E.A. No. ……… in E.P. No. ……… in O.S No……….

Between

                                                                                        …..… Petitioner/JDR

                                         Vs.

                                                                                      ……… Respondent/DHR

                                                                                      ……… Respondent/ auction purchaser

Petition filed on behalf of the petitioner/JDR under Or. 21 R. 90  and 151 of CPC

1. Description of the Petitioner : ………… S/o. ………. Religion ……. Aged about …….. occupation ………. R/o. ……….

Address for service is the same as stated above.

• Description of the Petitioner : ………… S/o. ………. Religion ……. Aged about …….. occupation ………. R/o. ……….

Second Respondent is …………. S/o ………. Religion …….. aged about…….occupation……….. R/o. ………

Address for service is the same as stated above.

• The petitioner submits that the first respondent/DHR filed the E.P for sale of the E.P schedule property. The schedule property was sold in court auction on…… and the second respondent is the auction purchaser. The petitioner came to know that there are several irregularities in the auction. The first respondent/DHR played fraud with collusion of second respondent. Due to the said fraud irregularities in the auction the sale is void under law and the sale is liable to be set aside on the following and among other grounds to be urged at the time of hearing.
• The property situated at a small village, in Gutnur District and the publication was made in Guntur District Edition and the said paper is not available for the villagers to participate in the auction and so the publicatio made is avoid under law.
• there is no beat of Tom Tom in the village,
• the bidders participate in the auction or close relatives to the first respondent/DHR and they were set-up by the first respondent/DHR to get the property for lesser value,
• Previously I filed my counter stating that the property worth about Rs. 5,00,000/and the prevailing market value as per the sub-registrar also is about Rs.4,00,000/but the property was knocked down in favour of second respondent/auction purchaser for Rs. 2,00,000/-only,
• The DHR has not mentioned the JDR’s value either in the proclamation or in the paper publication which is serious material irregularity, and
• The first respondent/DHR attached entire land and brought the same for sale for lesser decretal amount as the property value is very high than the decretal amount.
• This being a petition filed under Or.21 R. 90 a court fee of Rs. 2/- is paid herewith under Sch. II Art.11(i)(ii) of APCF & SV Act
• The petitioner therefore prays that the Hon’ble court may be pleased

To

1.  to set aside the sale dated
2. for costs
3. for such other reliefs the Hon’ble court deems fit and proper in the circum-stances of the case and interest of justice.

Advocate for Petitioner                                                                                   Petitioner

Place:

Date: