IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2835 OF 2009 BETWEEN: Smt Boya Mekala Pullamma and another …PETITIONERS AND Boya Nakkala Chinna Venkateshwarlu …RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2835 OF 2009 O R D E R: The revision is filed against the order in E.P.No.206 of 2008 in O.S.No.164 of 2007 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool dated 09.04.2009. The execution petition was filed for a direction to the respondent to execute a registered sale deed in pursuance of the decree for specific performance. 2. A suit was filed on the basis of an agreement dated 24.02.1999 said to have been executed by the judgment debtor and the judgment debtor did not contest the suit and an exparte decree was passed on 21.11.2007. Thereafter, in pursuance of that decree, the present execution petition was filed for a direction to the judgment debtor to execute a registered sale deed. The judgment debtor has taken a plea that on 01.02.2007 he has executed a gift deed in favour of his wife and taking this objection into consideration, the lower Court has dismissed the execution petition and aggrieved by the said order, the revision is filed. 3. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool in dismissing the execution petition is valid? 4. P O I N T: The lower Court evidently has failed to take note of the fact that the Court cannot go beyond the decree at the stage of execution. Even if an exparte decree is passed against the judgment debtor, it is enforceable so long as it is in force. The judgment debtor has not taken any plea in this suit that he has executed a gift deed in favour of his wife. If such a plea was taken, then he would have pleaded the same. Further-more, the alleged gift deed is said to have been executed after the agreement of sale in favour of the decree holder. If any rights are created in favour of the wife by virtue of the gift deed, it is for her to agitate, there is no need for her to be added as a party to the proceedings since the decree sought to be executed is against the judgment debtor. However, in the execution petition the validity or otherwise of the gift deed cannot be decided by the executing Court. If at all the decree holders are to be defeated, it can only by establishing the validity of the gift deed by the wife of the judgment debtor. 5. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, dismissing of the execution petition on the ground that the wife of the judgment debtor is proper and necessary party and that a registered gift deed is executed is not correct and the decree holders will be entitled to execute the decree and the Court cannot go beyond that. The judgment debtor cannot raise any untenable contentions to defeat the decree. Therefore, the order of the lower Court is set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Court to take further steps in pursuance of the execution. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 21-03-2011. INL