The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3502 of 2010 Dated 27th August, 2010 Between: M.Venkateswara Reddy …Petitioner And M/s.Sri Yelukuru Iron Mart, Kurnool …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.P.Venkateswarlu Counsel for the respondent: --- The Court made the following: Order: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of Order, dated 14-06-2010, in E.P.No.40 of 2009 in O.S.No.83 of 2007, on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, by which proclamation petition for sale of the suit property was allowed on 09-08-2010. I have heard Sri P.Venkateswarlu, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor in O.S.No.83 of 2007. The respondent/decree holder filed EP.No.40 of 2009 for execution of the decree, which has become final. Obviously, the previous attempt to sell the suit property was abortive. Therefore, the respondent has filed the above-mentioned petition for fresh proclamation and sale of the suit property for realisation of the decretal amount. As noted above, the said application was allowed under the impugned order. At the hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of E.P.No.40 of 2009, the State Bank of India, Kurnool, obtained order, dated 04- 04-2008, under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short ‘the Act’), whereby the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, has directed status quo to be maintained in respect of the suit property and therefore, the impugned order is illegal. Having carefully considered this submission, I find no merit therein. The proceedings under the Act, said to have been initiated by the State Bank of India, Kurnool, before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Hyderabad, are independent and any order passed therein does not bind the civil Court, which has passed the decree and is empowered to execute the same on the application of the decree holder. If at all, it is only the State Bank of India, which is stated to be the secured creditor, that is entitled to safeguard its interests for securing the debt and, being the judgment debtor, the petitioner cannot plead on its behalf. The petitioner, having suffered a decree which has become final, cannot resist its execution on the above-mentioned ground. Therefore, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Civil Revision Petition, CMP.No.4682 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J Dated 27th August, 2010 lur