IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1336 OF 2008 BETWEEN Smt. M. Jayanthi. …PETITIONER AND Nayeem Ahmed. …RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. GADE VENKATESWARA RAO Counsel for the Respondents: MR. MIRZA SAIFULLA BAIG The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioner, who is the landlord, obtained a decree in O.S.No.1133 of 2002 dated 27.08.2004 from the Court below for eviction of the respondent as well as arrears of rent quantified at Rs.1,48,000/- and the future rents were to be determined by separate application under Order 20 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Petitioner moved E.P.No.260 of 2006 before the trial Court for realization of the decreed amounts by selling the movable properties, which were already attached as per the inventory dated 20.11.2004 prepared by the Bailiff in earlier E.P.No.223 of 2004. The articles are said to be in the custody of the petitioner – decree holder, who intends to sell the same and recover the amounts. EP, however, was dismissed by the Court below in view of the specific stand of the respondent/judgment debtor that he has already filed I.A.No.1049 of 2007 to set aside the ex parte decree in O.S.No.1133 of 2002 together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The respondent/judgment debtor has also raised other pleas disputing the quantum of rent as well as pleaded that there was substantial advance lying with the petitioner/landlord. The executing Court found that since the respondent’s application for setting aside the decree is pending, the attached articles be not sold and dismissed the EP under the impugned order dated 25.01.2008. Questioning that order, this revision is filed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent states that though the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act moved by him was allowed, the application to set aside the ex parte decree is still pending. Learned counsel also reiterates that the rent was only Rs.6,000/- but not Rs.12,000/- per month and that Rs.2 lakhs are lying with the petitioner/landlord towards advance. However, these aspects being disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the adjudication of that in this revision is not permissible. 4. There is, however, no denying of the fact that the attached articles as per the list of inventory are said to be of a value of Rs.7,904/-. These articles are lying under attachment in the custody of the decree holder since 20.11.2004 and after lapse of so much time till now their value would have been further diminished. If the attached articles remain as they are without any order as to sale, the value of the said articles would be further diminished and neither of the parties would benefit therefrom. 5. I, therefore, deem it appropriate that as long as the decree under execution is not set aside and there is no stay with regard to execution, the petitioner/decree holder is entitled to execute the decree and as such his prayer for selling the attached movable articles is well justified and ought to have been allowed. In the result, the impugned order is set aside. The EP shall stand restored to the file of the executing Court with a direction to permit the petitioner – decree holder to sell the attached movable articles as prayed for and file the accounts thereof before the executing Court. The amounts realised out of the sale shall be subject to the result of the further orders of the executing Court. The executing Court shall dispose of the EP as expeditiously as possible. The civil revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 15, 2011 DSK