HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No.5198 OF 2010 Dated 21-04-2011 Between: Kondekula Vijayalakshmi. …Petitioner. And: Sk. Rahamatunnesa. ……Respondents. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No.5198 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order in E.P.No.74 of 2008 in O.S.No.1001 of 2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri rejecting the objections of the J.Dr. about the sale of the schedule properties. 2. A decree for money was obtained and interim order of attachment of the immovable property was also obtained in I.A.No.674 of 2007 which was made absolute on 27.11.2007 and thereafter, the present E.P. was filed for sale of the properties. 3. The main contention of the revision petitioner who is the J.Dr. before the lower Court is that the property was an assigned land and it is unalienable and therefore, it cannot be proceeded in execution. Reliance is placed in a decision reported i n M. ANUMAKKA AND ANOTHER v. TURPU GOPAL REDDY ([1]). 4. Evidently, so far as the facts of the case are concerned, the J.Dr. is not assignee of the land. Even from the own evidence of J.Dr., the property was assigned to one S.Apparao and from him, the property was purchased under Ex.A.1 and consequently, a building was constructed and property was said to have been sold under Ex.A.2 after the judgment. 5. Therefore, it is quite clear that the objection raised by the J.Dr. cannot be entertained since she herself is a purchaser from the assignee and if any objection is to be taken, it shall be taken only by the Government. The J.Dr. therefore, is a purchaser of the property and whether the purchase is valid or not cannot be objected by herself having purchased the property knowing that it is an assigned and leaving apart the fact that Ex.A.1 does not show that it is an assigned land. 6. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, objection raised by the revision petitioner does not survive for consideration and the learned Senior Civil Judge has rightly rejected the same. However, it is represented by the counsel for the revision petitioner that half of the decreetal amount was already deposited in pursuance of the orders of this Court in C.R.P.M.P.No.6913 of 2010. It was also represented that if sufficient time is given, the J.Dr. will deposit the balance amount. 7. In view of the above circumstances, the Judgment debtor is given three months time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to deposit the entire balance failing which further proceedings in E.P. can be proceeded. The Decree Holder is permitted to withdraw half of the amount already deposited. 8. With the above direction, the C.R.P. is disposed of. No costs. _________________________________ Justice N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO Dated 21-04-2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.No.5198 OF 2010 Dated 21-04-2011 [1] 2009 (4) ALT 401