HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4046 OF 2008 DATE:8-04-2011 BETWEEN Repalle Venkata Subba Rao and another …Petitioners AND Raavi Kokilamba …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4046 OF 2008 ORDER: Judgment debtors filed this revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. to revise the orders of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, dated 18.6.2008 in allowing E.A.No.349 of 2006 in E.P.No.60 of 2002 in O.S.No.9 of 1996. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he received information that the first petitioner died but his legal heirs are not coming forward to continue the proceedings. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Decree holder-respondent herein obtained a money decree in the suit for a sum of Rs.25,649/- with costs and subsequent interest thereon on 26.4.1999 and for due execution of the same, she filed the E.P. and brought the E.P. schedule property for sale and the sale was held on 11.8.2003. On depositing the amount by the auction purchaser, the judgment debtors-petitioners herein filed E.A.No.358 of 2003 to set aside the sale which was dismissed on 22.11.2004 and the sale was confirmed in favour of the auction purchaser. When the decree holder-respondent herein filed the cheque petition on 9.12.2004, the same was returned on the ground that a revision was filed. On dismissal of the revision on 15.7.2005 by this Court, the decree holder filed a fresh cheque petition on 1.9.2005 for Rs.43,650/-. Then it was realized that only Rs.12,500/- was lying to the credit of the E.P. On enquiry, the decree holder came to know that the first petitioner herein obtained ex parte decree against the second petitioner herein in O.S.No.354 of 2003 and got attached even before judgment, an amount of Rs.35,000/- out of the bid amount deposited in the present E.P. Further it was also found that the second petitioner herein obtained ex parte decree in O.S.No.355 of 2003 and got attached even before the decree an amount of Rs.65,000/- out of the bid amount deposited in the present E.P. That after the first and second petitioners getting the attachment of the amount, the amount was sent for from the present E.P., to their respective I.As. on 19.2.2004 and they withdrew the said amount for which, they are not entitled to. Hence, the decree holder filed the above E.A. The executing Court found that it committed a mistake in ordering the I.As. and permitting the petitioners herein to withdraw the said amount and therefore, the said amount was directed to be re-deposited by the petitioners to the credit of the E.P. and that can be distributed among all the creditors ratably. Since it is a mistake of the Court in permitting the petitioners to withdraw the amount, the Court can always rectify the said mistake when the same is brought to its notice. No illegality is discernable with the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. However, the legal representatives of the first petitioner are always at liberty to come on record in the E.P. and can seek for ratable distribution of the amounts due under the decree obtained by the first petitioner. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. APRIL 08, 2011 Tsr.