HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 977 OF 2010. DATED 3RD SEPTEMBER, 2010. BETWEEEN Vishnubhotla Udaya Sankar …..Petitioner and Kosaraju Satyanarayana … Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 977 OF 2010. ORDER: The petitioner who is the judgment debtor ﬁled this Civil Revision Petition purportedly under Section 115 CPC inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 19.11.2009,whereby the learned Principal Junior civil Judge, Tenali, allowed E.P.No. 112 of 2009 in O.S.No. 161 of 2006 ﬁled by the decree holder under Order XXI Rule 46 CPC to attach the execution petition schedule property towards realisation of the decretal debt. It is not in dispute that the respondent/decree holder obtained a decree against the petitioner/judgment debtor for realization of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with costs and future interest. Though the decree holder obtained ex parte decree, but the judgment debtor has not preferred any appeal against the said decree and judgment, and, therefore the said decree became ﬁnal. Though an application ﬁled by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for restoration of t h e ex parte decree is still pending consideration, the decree is said to be still in force. It is the case of the petitioner/judgment debtor that the decree holder did not follow the mandatory provision under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC and the present application has been ﬁled contrary to the condition contained therein and therefore the attachment is required to be raised. Heard both sides. Perused the record. The respondent/decree holder earlier ﬁled E.P.No. 248 of 2007, which was closed on 19.12.2007 and the present E.P. is ﬁled on 27.4.2009. Therefore, ﬁling of the present E.P. in violation of the condition contained under Order XXI Rule 22 CPC does not arise. The ﬁling of the present execution petition is within two years time after the closure of the earlier execution petition. Further more it is not the case of the judgment debtor that in the earlier execution petition the decree holder realised the decreetal debt so as to order to raise the attachment. Apart from that, having regard to the discretion exercised by the Court below in allowing the petition, I do not ﬁnd any illegality or irregularity warranting interference with the order under revision. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. The Court below is directed to dispose of the application filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 CPC within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. ----------------------------------------- JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO 3rd SEPTEMBER, 2010. Msnr.