The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3864 of 2009 Dated: 28-08-2009 Between: G.Jaya Prakash ….Petitioner And 1.Rajani Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd., rep. by its Director, Saraiah (died), Warangal and 2 others. …..Respondents ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code by the defendants in O.S.No.52 of 2001 aggrieved by Order, dated 29-04- 2009, passed by the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in E.P.No.42 of 2007 therein. The first respondent herein obtained a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,74,016/- and in order to realize the same, he filed E.P.No.42 of 2007 for attachment and sale of the EP schedule properties i.e., item No.1 being House bearing Nos.6-2-161 and 6-2-162 to an extent of 600 square yards situated near Chowrastha, Kakaji Colony, Hanamkonda, Warangal, and item No.2 being House bearing Nos.2-4-596 and 2-4-297 to an extent of 400 square yards situated at Ramnagar, Hanamkonda, Warangal. The petitioners/judgment debtors filed a counter-affidavit stating that item No.1 has already been sold by the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, and item No.2 stands in the name of the third parties and as such, no further steps should be taken for attachment and sale of the said properties. However, the Court below has passed the impugned order directing to take further steps for sale of the said properties. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioners/judgment debtors that in view of the objections raised by the petitioners/judgment debtors, the Court below has to conduct an enquiry as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 23 sub-Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, but without making any enquiry as such, the impugned order has been passed. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the Court below has recorded a finding that though the petitioners/judgment debtors pleaded that item No.1 of the EP Schedule Property was sold by the Debt Recovery Tribunal and item No.2 stands in the name of third parties, no documentary evidence is filed in support thereof. In view of the same, the objections raised by the petitioners/judgment debtors in their counter-affidavit were over ruled. As the reasons for taking further steps for sale of the EP schedule properties have been recorded in the impugned order, it cannot be said that the Court below has not considered the objections raised in the counter- affidavit and that no enquiry is conducted thereon. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Dated 28th August, 2009 lur