The Hon’ble Sri Justice B.Prakash Rao Civil Revision Petition No.4017 of 2008 Order: Petitioner, who is the decree holder, filed this revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘the CPC’) inter alia seeking to assail order, dated 03-06-2008, allowing EA.No.443 of 2006 in EP.No.65 of 2005 in OS.No.243 of 2003, filed by the respondent herein, who is a third party. The case of the revision petitioner in short is that since no bids were received at the time of auction of the E.P.Schedule property, she herself came forward and accordingly, the bid was confirmed in her favour for an amount, which is far lesser than the decretal amount, and that the respondent herein filed the impugned application for rateable distribution of the assets after confirmation of bid in favour of the petitioner herein and that therefore, necessarily the question of any rateable distribution does not arise. The learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that respondent No.1 is also a decree holder in O.S.No.246 of 2003 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty, against the 2nd respondent herein and that therefore, he is also entitled for the rateable distribution of the sale proceeds in question and that the Court below is justified in allowing the impugned application filed by him. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and having perused the entire material available on record, it is seen that the application made by respondent No.1- third party, seeking distribution of the auction amount, to be deposited by the successful bidder of the EP schedule property, between him and the petitioner herein, was allowed. The undisputed fact remains that respondent No.1 is a decree holder against respondent No.2 herein in O.S.No.246 of 2003 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gooty. If that being the case, the provisions of Section 73 of the C.P.C., come into play to safeguard the interests of such persons, who obtained a decree against the judgment debtor. Irrespective of the fact as to whether the applications filed by the revision petitioner seeking to set off the deposit of 25% purchase money as well as the purchase money against the amount due on the decree, is considered or not, the fact remains that respondent No.1 is another decree holder. In these peculiar circumstances and in view of the fact that the claim of the parties is to be adjudicated before the Court below, I am of the view that the said contentions cannot be considered at this stage of the proceedings. However, both the parties are at liberty to raise their respective contentions, which have been raised in this Civil Revision Petition, before the Court below. In this view of the matter, I feel that the order impugned, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and thereby, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ B.Prakash Rao, J Date: 19-08-2010 lur