THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1889 OF 2011 DATED 5TH AUGUST, 2011 BETWEEN Kummari Sudhakar and others …Petitioners And Shriram Chits Private Limited, Siddipet Branch, Hyderabad Road, Siddipet, Medak District and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1889 OF 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed by three of the Judgment Debtors in O.S.No.18 of 2006 aggrieved by the order dated 15.04.2011 passed by the executing Court of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Siddipet in E.A.No.18 of 2011 in E.P.No.58 of 2010 in O.S.No.18 of 2006 refusing to stay the orders of attachment of their salary pending adjudication of the issue of maintainability of the Execution Petition. This Court, by order dated 24.06.2011, granted interim stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.58 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Siddipet, including attachment of the petitioners’ salary. It is an admitted fact that the first defendant in the suit, O.S.No.18 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge at Siddipet, died pending the suit on 01.05.2009. An application to implead his legal representatives was filed in I.A.No.377 of 2009 which was ordered on 04.02.2010. However, when the suit was decreed on 30.08.2010, the legal representatives were not shown and the judgment and decree as framed were passed against a dead defendant. On the basis of this defective decree, the executing Court entertained E.P.No.58 of 2010 and directed attachment of the salary of the surviving Judgment Debtors, the petitioners herein. The application filed by them in E.A.No.18 of 2011 in the execution petition to stay the orders of attachment pending consideration of their objections as to the maintainability of the Execution Petition was rejected by the order under revision. It is now stated by Sri Kunchem Maheswara Rao, learned counsel for the first respondent/decree holder, that an amended decree has been obtained pursuant to the order of the trial Court on 27.04.2011 in I.A.No.410 of 2011 in O.S.No.18 of 2006. The learned counsel now states that pursuant to the amended decree, his client would be filing fresh execution proceedings. In the light of these developments, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 15.04.2011 passed in E.A.No.18 of 2011 in E.P.No.58 of 2010 in O.S.No.18 of 2006. Needless to state, it is always open to the first respondent/decree holder to withdraw the Execution Petition and file a fresh Execution Petition in accordance with law on the basis of the amended decree. In the event the decree holder withdraws E.P.No.58 of 2010, the matter shall end there. Otherwise, the executing Court would have to consider the objections raised as to the maintainability of the Execution Petition on merits. Miscellaneous petitions filed in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 5TH AUGUST, 2011. VGSR/PGS