CPC, 1908 — Sections 115, 151; Order XXI Rules 90 & 106 — Allegation of fraud in execution sale — Failure to plead particulars — Dismissal upheld — When a judgment debtor sought to set aside an ex parte order and execution sale alleging fraud and undervaluation, but failed to particularize or prove fraud as required by Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and offered no satisfactory explanation for delay, Held, dismissal of his applications by the executing court cannot be faulted. — Mere assertions of fraud, unsupported by evidence, do not justify interference under Section 115 CPC or sustain an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(j). Fraud — Burden of proof — Pleadings — Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence; vague averments or conjectures are insufficient to invoke equitable relief.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF JULY, 2025

PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI CHEEMALAPATI

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 588 of 2025

AND

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No. 110 of 2025

(Common Order)

Between:
Boddula Siva Surya Venkateswara Rao,
S/o. Late Appala Narasayya … Petitioner / Judgment Debtor / Appellant

And

1. Koppisetti Veerababu, S/o. Venkateswarlu

2. Vasamsetty Sri Siva Kumar, S/o. Venkateswarlu
   … Respondents / Decree Holders / Respondents

Counsel for Petitioner: Sri Shaik Mohammed Ismail
Counsel for Respondents: Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao

HEADNOTES

CPC, 1908 — Sections 115, 151; Order XXI Rules 90 & 106 — Allegation of fraud in execution sale — Failure to plead particulars — Dismissal upheld —
When a judgment debtor sought to set aside an ex parte order and execution sale alleging fraud and undervaluation, but failed to particularize or prove fraud as required by Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and offered no satisfactory explanation for delay, Held, dismissal of his applications by the executing court cannot be faulted.
— Mere assertions of fraud, unsupported by evidence, do not justify interference under Section 115 CPC or sustain an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(j).

Fraud — Burden of proof — Pleadings —
Fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved by cogent evidence; vague averments or conjectures are insufficient to invoke equitable relief.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

1. The respondents/decree holders filed O.S. No. 370 of 2015 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, for recovery of money, which was decreed on 23.10.2017.

2. To enforce the decree, they filed E.P. No. 32 of 2019 before the Senior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram (as the attached property lay within that jurisdiction).

3. The petitioner/judgment debtor was set ex parte on 28.01.2020, and his property was auctioned on 06.02.2024.

4. He thereafter filed E.A. Nos. 38 & 39 of 2024 seeking to set aside the ex parte order and cancel the sale, alleging that he was unaware of the proceedings, that his counsel had died during the COVID period, and that the property worth ₹2 crores was sold for ₹21,30,000/- through fraudulent undervaluation.

5. The executing court dismissed both applications on 31.12.2024, finding no proof of fraud or bona fide explanation for delay. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition (No. 588/2025) and CMA (No. 110/2025).

COURT’S ANALYSIS

• Fraud allegation: The petitioner alleged fraud and undervaluation but did not file any documentary proof such as market value certificates or conversion documents.

• Order VI Rule 4 CPC mandates that cases involving fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence must contain specific particulars — dates, acts, and items. The petitioner’s affidavit was vague and bereft of details.

• No substantial injury proved: Even assuming irregularity, the petitioner failed to prove that substantial injury resulted from the sale, as required under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC.

• Delay and laches: No satisfactory reason was offered for not filing the applications within limitation. The plea that his counsel died and he fell ill was unsupported by any evidence.

• Findings of lower court: The executing court rightly held that the allegations were unsubstantiated and the sale was conducted per procedure.

• Scope of revision under Section 115 CPC: The High Court will not interfere unless there is jurisdictional error or manifest illegality, neither of which was demonstrated here.

OPERATIVE CONCLUSION

Held:
The petitioner failed to plead or prove fraud with requisite particulars or to justify the delay.
The executing court’s orders are reasoned and proper.
No illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error is found warranting interference.

• Accordingly, C.R.P. No. 588 of 2025 and C.M.A. No. 110 of 2025 are dismissed.

• No order as to costs.

• All pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

— RAVI CHEEMALAPATI, J.
Date: 18.07.2025

Ratio Capsule for Digest:

“Execution sale — Allegation of fraud — Pleadings must satisfy Order VI Rule 4 CPC — Mere assertion without proof insufficient — Applications rightly dismissed; no interference under Section 115 CPC.”