IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4034 OF 2010 Between : Chilukuri Annapuran .... PETITIONER A N D Potluri Ammani …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4034 OF 2010 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘CPC’) is directed against the docket order, dated 16.07.2010, in E.P.No.66 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur, whereunder and whereby, the Court below ordered publication of sale of schedule property. 2. Heard. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/judgment debtor contended that earlier Execution Petition filed by the Decree holder was dismissed for default as the property in question was an assigned land; that thereafter the petitioner sold away the property under a registered sale deed, dated 19.02.2010; that the present Execution Petition was filed for sale of schedule property, which was already disposed of and hence he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder contended that the attachment of the property in question was effected on 23.10.2009; that while the attachment was in force, the petitioner sold away the schedule property on 19.02.2010; that by virtue of Section 64 CPC, the sale is void and hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The property in question was already attached on 23.10.2009 prior to selling of the property. The impugned order was passed on 16.07.2010 by issuing proclamation of sale notice through publication. 6. Section 64 CPC declares that a private alienation of property after attachment is void as against claim enforceable under the attachment. To render an alienation, there must have been an attachment. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that after dismissal of the earlier execution petition, the property was sold, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the property was sold, while the attachment order was in force. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 16.07.2010, in E.P.No.66 of 2009 in O.S.No.20 of 2003 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Kaikalur. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J APRIL 01, 2011 YVL