IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST (21st) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5105 of 2006 Between: P. Raghava Rao … Petitioner And: N. Venkateswarlu … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.5105 of 2006 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 07.08.2006 in EP No.19 of 2005 in OS No.195 of 2001 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, wherein, the said E.P. filed by the petitioner herein-decree-holder, for execution of the decree by sale of the E.P. schedule property of the JDr, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for recovery of amount due. The suit was decreed on 08.12.2004 for a sum of Rs.3,68,100/-. In execution of the decree, the petitioner filed EP No.19 of 2005. The schedule property was attached before judgment by IA No.939 of 2001 in OS No.195 of 2001. It is stated that the JDr sold away the schedule property to one M. Vijaya under a registered sale deed dated 29.04.2004 subsequent to the attachment. The petitioner/decree holder filed a suit OS No.297 of 2004 against the JDr and M. Vijaya, for cancellation of the said sale deed dated 29.04.2004. 4. Admittedly, there is no dispute regarding the identity of the property, even though the municipal door number got changed in the course of time. The execution Court dismissed the execution petition on the ground that the property is in possession of Vijaya but not JDr and unless the sale deed executed by JDr in favour of Vijaya is set aside and possession is delivered back to the JDr, the decree-holder is not entitled to proceed against the property. The said finding of the execution Court is wholly unsustainable. The property was already under attachment. Even though, M Vijaya, has purchased the property, it is only subject to the attachment. E.P. cannot be dismissed on the ground that the property under attachment, is sold away by the JDr and that the JDr was not in possession of the property. It is for the third party claimant-Vijaya to take necessary steps, if she intends to make any claim over the property, but the DHr action to execute the decree by proceeding against the property, which is already under attachment before judgment cannot be defeated on the ground of sale of property by the JDr in favour of third party, notwithstanding the attachment. It is stated that the suit OS No.297 of 2004 filed by the decree-holder against the JDr and Vijaya, for cancellation of the sale deed, was dismissed. However, the same does not come in the way of execution of the decree. 5. In the circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and consequently, E.P. stands restored and the execution Court shall proceed further in accordance with law. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is allowed as stated above. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 21.02.2011 bss