HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5260 of 2011 Date: 26.12.2011 Between: Bharathula Sridevi … Petitioner And Kommuri Purnachandra Rao and another … Respondents HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 5260 of 2011 O R D E R : This revision petition is preferred under Section 115 of C.P.C. aggrieved by the order dated 28.10.2011 in E.P.No.69 of 2010 in O.S.No.391 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The facts in brief are as under: The 1st respondent herein filed O.S.No.391 of 2004 for recovery of money against the 2nd respondent herein and the same was decreed as prayed for. The 1st respondent herein filed E.P.No.69 of 2010 for realization of the decretal amount by attachment and sale of the E.P. Schedule property. While the execution proceedings are pending, the revision petitioner, who is the daughter of the judgment debtor/2nd respondent herein filed E.A.No.33 of 2011 under Order XXI Rules 97 & 101 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. to recall the warrant of attachment. By order dated 28.10.2011 E.A.No.33 of 2011 was adjourned to 12.12.2011 on the ground that the petitioner was not ready. However, on the same day in E.P.No.69 of 2010 sale notice was issued by the Court below recording the absence of the Judgment debtor/2nd respondent herein. Aggrieved by the said order dated 28.12.2011 in E.P.No.69 of 2010, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioner in E.A.No.33 of 2011. I have heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent-decree holder. Admittedly, E.A.No.33 of 2011 is pending. In fact, the order under revision itself shows that the Court was aware of the pendency of the said petition filed questioning the very maintainability of the execution proceedings. In the circumstances, the Court below ought to have considered and disposed of E.A.No.33 of 2011 in the first instance. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, while keeping the said application if the Court proceeds with sale of the E.P. Schedule property, E.A.No.33 of 2011 itself would become infructuous. Accordingly, the order under revision dated 28.10.2011 in E.P.No.69 of 2010 is hereby set aside and the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to consider and decide E.A.No.33 of 2011 following due process of law as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of this order. It is represented by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent that the 1st respondent/decree holder has already filed his counter to E.A.No.33 of 2011 contending inter alia that the said petition is not maintainable. Therefore, there shall be a direction to the Court below to hear both the parties with regard to the maintainability of E.A.No.33 of 2011 and in case, it is found to be maintainable, the said application should be heard and decided on merits. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the revision petitioner would not ask for any further adjournment and would cooperate for disposal of E.A.No.33 of 2011 within the time prescribed above. The statement of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is placed on record. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 26.12.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in 3 days. KLP