THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5537 of 2003 ORDER: The present civil revision petition is filed against the judgment, dated 13.08.2002, in C.M.A.No.46 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole. The revision petitioner is the appellant in C.M.A.No.46 of 2002 and defendant No.3 in O.S.No.586 of 1978 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Ongole and judgment-debtor No.3 in E.P.No.83 of 1986. The revision petitioner filed E.A.No.1106 of 1991 in E.P.No.83 of 1986 in O.S.No.586 of 1978 seeking to set aside the sale of immovable properties conducted on 23.10.1991. The trial Court dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed C.M.A.No.46 of 2002 and the same was also dismissed. Hence, this revision. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in spite of the stay orders granted by this Court in C.M.P.No.16909 of 1989, the executing Court proceeded with the execution and conducted auction of the property and thus, the said sale is bad in law and hence, the petitioner filed E.A.No.1106 of 1991 and the same was dismissed by the trial Court on 21.11.1997 and the lower appellate Court also upheld the orders passed by the trial Court and mainly urged that the orders passed by both the Courts below are not sustainable in view of the stay orders granted in C.M.P.No.16909 of 1989. Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable? As seen from the impugned order, originally the decree holder-respondent filed E.P.No.99 of 1985 for attachment and sale of movable properties and thereafter, sureties were directed to produce the solvencies to conduct sale. But, the sureties failed to produce the same and accordingly, the trial Court proceeded against the sureties and closed the same on 17.03.1986. Aggrieved by the said order, a revision was filed by the petitioner before this Court along with C.M.P.No.16909 of 1989, in which, stay of all further proceedings in E.P.No.99 of 1985 was ordered. Thereafter, the decree holder-respondent again moved another E.P.No.83 of 1986 for attachment of sale of immovable properties of judgment debtor No.2. Followed by the attachment order of the trial Court, the property was brought to sale on 23.10.1991. The petitioner did not file any petition against the orders passed in E.P.No.83 of 1986. After the sale was held, a third party filed a petition under Section 47 C.P.C. and the same was also dismissed by the trial Court while confirming the sale held on 23.10.1991. From a perusal of the entire record, admittedly, there was no stay whatsoever with regard to the proceedings in E.P.No.83 of 2008. The tenor and substance of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the stay granted in respect of the proceedings in O.S.No.586 of 1978, in which E.P.No.83 of 1986 is filed, is also a continuous proceedings. Any subsequent orders in O.S.No.586 of 1978 are subject to the stay granted by this Court in C.M.P.No.16909 of 1989, dated 29.11.1989. In my honest view, the aforesaid argument is of no consequence in view of the clear orders of this Court in C.M.P. No.16909 of 1989. The prayer in E.P.No.99 of 1985 is for attachment of movable property, whereas E.P.No.83 of 1986 is for attachment of immovable properties. Though the revision petitioner obtained stay in E.P.No.99 of 1985, the decree holder thereafter, brought the property of judgment debtor No.2 for sale for realisation of the debt. It is the prerogative of the decree holder to choose his avenues against the judgment debtor for realisation of the debt. Unless and until a specific prohibitory order is obtained from the competent Court, against the orders in E.P.No.83 of 1986, further proceedings cannot be stalled by the executing Court. In the aforesaid backdrop, the executing Court correctly exercised its jurisdiction while ordering sale in E.P.No.83 of 1986. Further more, the revision petitioner has not taken any steps against the decree holder for the alleged violation of the Court orders in C.M.P.No.16909 of 1989. Having failed to take any steps for redressal, now he cannot agitate that the executing Court has no power to proceed with the sale of immovable properties in E.P.No.83 of 1986. Therefore, in any view of the matter, in totality of the circumstances, I see no force in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing of the revision petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order, dated 13.08.2002, is sustainable. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J Dt:21.10.2011 kdl