THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No.2276 of 2006 O R D E R: This revision is directed against the order dated 23.01.2006 in E.P.No.72 of 2004 in O.S.No.353 of 2002 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Badvel. The brief facts of this case are as follows: The petitioner herein obtained a decree in O.S.No.353 of 2002 against the judgment debtor for realisation of Rs.92,375/-. During the pendency of the suit, he filed I.A.No.855 of 2002 and the E.P. schedule property was attached. A warrant of attachment was issued and it was informed to the public by way of beat of ‘tom tom’ and a receipt dated 05.11.2002 to that effect was filed before the lower Court. After obtaining decree, the petitioner filed E.P. under Order 21, Rules 66 and 64 C.P.C. to put the property to sale for realisation of the decretal amount. The respondent herein who is the defendant in the main suit filed counter inter alia contending that the property does not belong to him. It is his specific case that the property originally belonged to one Ch.Mahaboob Bee and from her one J.Subbarayudu purchased it who in turn sold the same to one Y.Ramanamma and from Ramanamma one M.Subbaramaiah purchased the said property. On behalf of the petitioner, the petitioner himself was examined as PW.1 and one Y.Jayaram was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked and on behalf of the respondent, respondent himself was examined as R.W.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of the respondent. The lower Court having considered the oral and documentary evidence came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to prove that the E.P. schedule property belongs to JDr. Sri L.J.Vera Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the lower Court has not discussed about Exs.A.1 to A.3 and Ex.A.6 and failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective. It is also his main contention that when the property was attached during the pendency of the suit, no application was filed to raise the attachment and that no third party claims have been filed under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C. It is also his contention that if at all the property does not belong to the petitioner, there was no necessity for him to object for sale of such property in execution proceedings. The learned counsel for the respondent has supported the impugned order and submitted that the burden lies on the petitioner to prove that the petition schedule property belong to the judgment debtor and since the petitioner failed to prove the same, the lower Court has rightly rejected the petition. The only point for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? It is the bounden duty of the Court to consider the entire evidence placed before it, both oral and documentary evidence. A perusal of the order of the lower Court reveals that the lower Court has not discussed about the Exs.A.1 to A.3 and also with regard to Ex.A.6. Exs.A.1 to A.3 prima facie go to show that the property was attached during the pendency of suit and that a warrant of attachment was issued and general public was informed by beat of ‘tom tom’ and Ex.A.6 is with regard to the insolvency proceedings filed by the JDr. Without entering into the merits and demerits of the rival contentions, I am of the view that the order of the lower Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Court below has not taken into consideration all the documents filed before the Court and it shows that there is no proper appreciation of evidence. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the lower Court. However, the lower Court may give an opportunity to both the parties to adduce further evidence if any and decide the matter in accordance with law. No costs. ______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J 16th December, 2010. PNV