THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5413 OF 2007 DATED: 17.09.2010 Between : Y. B. Narasimha Reddy … Petitioner And K. Harinath Reddy … Respondent THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5413 OF 2007 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 12.10.2006 in E.P.No.17 of 2005 in O.S.No.174 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The revision petitioner is the decree holder, who obtained money decree dated 28.07.2004, in O.S.No.174 of 2002. Pending the said suit, attachment before judgment was ordered on 14.10.2002 in respect of Ac.1.22 cents of land situated in survey No.23/1c of Kakkalapalli village. After the suit was decreed, the decree holder/revision petitioner filed E.P.No.17 of 2005 for execution of the decree by sale of the above said property which was under attachment before judgment. The judgment-debtor/respondent herein filed a counter pleading that he had paid the entire E.P. amount in the presence of the elders and therefore, the Execution Petition was not maintainable. It was also contended that the property in respect of which the attachment was ordered was already sold by him to a third party on 11.06.2001 and thus, he had no saleable interest in respect of the said property. Before the Court below, the decree holder got himself examined as PW.1 and two witnesses were examined on behalf of the judgment- debtor as RWs.1 and 2. On appreciation of the evidence, the Court below recorded a finding that there was no evidence to show that the judgment-debtor had paid the decretal amount as pleaded by him. However, it was held that out of Ac.1.22 cents of land, as the judgment- debtor had sold Ac.1.00 on 11.06.2001 much prior to the order of attachment before judgment, the judgment- debtor had no saleable interest and accordingly, the Execution Petition was dismissed by order dated 12.10.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed by the decree holder. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite notice, the respondent did not choose to appear. As could be seen, the Execution Petition was dismissed on the ground that the judgment-debtor was in possession of only 22 cents of land which was not sufficient to discharge the E.P. amount. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner, while pointing out from the evidence of the judgment-debtor, who got himself examined as RW.1, stated that the judgment-debtor actually owned Ac.2.22 cents of land, out of which he had sold Ac.1.00 cents and thus still he is in possession of Ac.1.22 cents of land which would be sufficient to discharge the E.P. amount. While submitting that the Court below had failed to appreciate the correct factual position, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the E.P. was dismissed on an erroneous assumption that the judgment-debtor was left with only 22 cents of land. Having regard to the submissions of the learned counsel, which appear to be prima facie correct in the light of the evidence of RW.1, it would be appropriate to remand the matter for reconsideration on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to reconsider E.P.No.17 of 2005 and pass appropriate orders afresh, after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. It is also open to both parties to produce fresh evidence, if any, to substantiate their respective claims. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. _____________ G. ROHINI, J Dt. 17.09.2010 Ivd/gbs