IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.3573 of 2011 Between: K. Shankarappa .. Petitioner AND K. Veeramanemma @ Veeramani and another .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 06-06-2011 in E.P.No.75 of 2010 in O.S.No.17 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Mahabubnagar. The impugned order overruled the objections of the judgment debtor/revision petitioner against the execution of the decree in O.S.No.17 of 1999 by selling the execution petition schedule immovable property. The Judgment debtor claimed that O.S.No.31 of 2010 was filed by him to have a fresh partition as the earlier judgments were obtained by fraud. The impugned order stated that as O.S.No.17 of 1999 had become final and possession of property was also delivered, such a plea cannot be entertained. The property was already attached and sale papers and Encumbrance Certificates were already filed. Hence, the Executing Court directed the sale papers and Encumbrance Certificates to be checked and put up by 15-06-2011. The judgment debtor contended herein that the decree being subject of O.S.No.31 of 2010 could not have been proceeded with in execution, more so, when the decree was obtained by fraud and the sources of income of the judgment debtor also should have been considered. Sri Krishna Kishore Kovvuri, learned counsel representing Sri N. Siva Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioner is heard at the stage of admission. The point for consideration is whether there is any justification for any interference with the impugned order in revision? The copy of the plaint in O.S.No.31 of 2010 filed by the revision petitioner shows that the revision petitioner and his mother filed the suit seeking cancellation of the partition dated 09- 03-1984 on grounds of unequal shares and unfair allotment, apart from seeking cancellation of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.17 of 1999 and A.S.No.573 of 2005 and ordering a fresh partition. The judgment and decree in O.S.No.17 of 1999 as confirmed in A.S.No.573 of 2005 are thus admittedly in force even according to the contention of the revision petitioner and the revision petitioner did not claim any interim stay or suspension of the judgment of the trial Court or the Appellate Court to be in force on the filing of O.S.No.31 of 2010. If so, any execution of the decree in O.S.No.17 of 1999 could not have been refused to be proceeded with by the Executing Court. The execution is sought to be made for recovery of Rs.2,60,308/- as per the decree and when the judgment in A.S.No.573 of 2005 was claimed to have been confirmed by the Apex Court in S.L.P.No.23921 of 2009, as per the Execution Petition, the Executing Court could not have granted any relief in favour of the judgment debtor on the ground of mere pendency of O.S.No.31 of 2010. The question of any such vitiating factors as alleged against the decree in O.S.No.17 of 1999 could not have been the subject of any enquiry in execution and any inability of the judgment debtor to sell the land to satisfy the decree or the absence of any urgency for executing the decree or the other objections taken by the judgment debtor in the counter affidavit could not have formed valid grounds for stalling further execution of the decree for recovery of the Execution Petition amount by sale of the Execution Petition schedule property. Therefore, the impugned order directing checking of sale papers and Encumbrance Certificates so as to proceed with the execution further cannot be interfered with on any reasonable ground in the exercise of restricted revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed without costs at the stage of admission. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 17-10-2011 Ksn