THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.2076 of 2006 Date: 17.2.2011 Between: Smt. B.Shobha Ayyappan ………..Petitioner. And Dr. Lateefa Khanam ………..Respondent. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P No.2076 of 2006 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 23.1.2006 passed in E.P.No.312 of 2003 in O.S.No.67 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. The petitioner herein is the decree holder in the above suit, which was decreed on 2.7.2003. Then he filed E.P.No.312 of 2003 for Rs.25,675/- and prayed the Court to attach the schedule property and to sell the same for realization of the decretal amount. The respondent’s objection is that the schedule property was already mortgaged to State Bank of India, Draksharama and that the said Bank is a secured creditor. The lower Court holding that prior to the attachment of the schedule property i.e., prior to 19.11.2003, the 2nd respondent/J.Dr (2nd J.Dr) had created an equitable mortgage in favour of the State Bank of India, Draksharama by depositing her original title deed dated 14.6.1999 in respect of the self same property as such the bank is a secured creditor and the property cannot be brought to sale. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit filed by the Manager, State Bank of India, Draksharama Branch in O.S.No.261 of 2005 has been dismissed as settled out Court on 16.2.2009 i.e., after passing the impugned order and in view of the same, now there cannot be any objection for selling the attached property for realization of the decreatal amount in the present E.P. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that since the property was already under an equitable mortgage to the bank as on the date of passing of the order, the said order cannot be said to be illegal and there is nothing to interfere with the same because the lower Court has taken into consideration the facts and circumstances prevailing as on the date of passing of the said order. Admittedly, the property, which was attached in the E.P., was already under an equitable mortgage in favour of the State Bank of India, Draksharama, created by the 2nd respondent/J.Dr, even prior to the date of attachment in the present E.P. Therefore, we cannot find fault with the impugned order. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision petition and the same has to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the present petitioner/decree holder in filing fresh E.P., and seeking attachment of the same property and in that event, the lower Court shall consider the same afresh by giving opportunities to both the parties to adduce evidence in respect of their contentions. No order as to costs. ______________________ Justice B.Chandra Kumar Date:17.2.2011. mrb