THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.321 of 2001 ORDER: The appellant filed O.S.No.113 of 1986 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, against the 2nd respondent for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, he filed E.P.No.67 of 1994. A plot of 285 square yards owned by the 2nd respondent was attached. The 1st respondent filed E.A.No.344 of 1997 under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. He pleaded that the 2nd respondent owned a plot of 650 square yards and that the same was agreed to be sold to him under agreement of sale, dated 18.07.1984, marked as Ex.A.5. A sale deed, dated 16.01.1988 was executed by the 2nd respondent in favour of the 1st respondent for an extent of 320 square yards. Thereafter, a plot of 285 square yards was conveyed to him, through sale deed, dated 03.12.1994, marked as Ex.A.7. The appellant opposed the E.A., by stating that Ex.A.7 is admittedly subsequent to the date of attachment i.e., 13.11.1994 and that the claim of the 1st respondent is untenable. Through its judgment, dated 11.10.2000, the executing Court allowed the E.A. Hence, this C.M.A. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent presented a claim under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. in the E.P. filed by the appellant. Since the claim petition deserves to be treated as a suit, the executing Court conducted a detailed trial. On behalf of the 1st respondent, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.10 were filed. On behalf of the appellant, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were filed. Had the sale through Ex.A.7 taken place instantly and not preceded by any agreement of sale, the claim of the 1st respondent deserves to be rejected. The reason is that the sale took place on 03.12.1994, subsequent to the attachment, which was effected on 13.11.1994. It was the specific case of the 1st respondent that Ex.A.7 is preceded by an agreement of sale, dated 18.07.1984. It is not a case, where Ex.A.5 was pressed into service for the first time in these proceedings. Against the 2nd respondent, another suit being O.S.No.114 of 1986 was filed and the very property was proceeded in the execution in E.P.No.21 of 1992. The 1st respondent filed E.A,No.398 of 1994 and pressed his claim. The Court, which decided that E.A., accepted the plea and found that Ex.A.5 is true and genuine. That finding lends support to the claim of the 1st respondent and the executing Court in the instant case has taken the same into account. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the order under appeal. The C.M.A. is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 23.07.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.321 of 2001 Date: 23.07.2010 JSU