HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3803 OF 2006 Date:08-07-2010 Between: Kothmasu Sambasiva Rao (died) and others …. Petitioners AND Gade Mahalakshmi …. Respondent HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3803 OF 2006 ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. Petitioners, who are the Judgment Debtors, filed this revision under Section 115 C.P.C., inter aliIa seeking to assail the order dated 30-01-2006 in E.P. No.574 of 1998 of the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, in rejecting the objections raised by them in the E.P. filed by the respondent-Decree holder. 3. The respondent, on earlier occasion, filed E.P. No.396 of 1988 and it was dismissed for default. Thereafter, the respondent filed the impugned E.P. and it was also dismissed on 30-04-2002 and against that order of dismissal, he approached this Court by way of a revision in C.R.P. No.4672 of 2002 and this Court allowed the revision remitting the E.P. back for restoration. Accordingly, after restoration of the E.P., the Execution Court proceeded further for settlement of terms for conducting sale. 4. At that stage, the petitioners-judgment debtors took objections as to the maintainability of the sale proceedings on the ground that in view of the dismissal of the Execution Proceedings, the attachment before judgment shall automatically deemed to be raised by virtue of Order-XXI Rule-57 (2) CPC. 5. The fact remains that on an earlier occasion, E.P. No.574 of 1998 was dismissed and on the revision preferred by the Decree holder, the matter was directed to be restored to file. It is to be noted that at the time of passing the said order, the judgment debtors have failed to raise the objections as to the maintainability of the E.P, which has been raised before the Court below and this Court. 6. It is also pertinent to note that C.R.P. No.4672 of 2002 was allowed on 8-11-2002 remitting the E.P in question back for restoration. But, it is seen that after four years, the judgment debtors have taken the aid of the provisions of Order-XXI Rule 57 (2) C.P.C. In this regard, the Executing Court is justified in observing that the judgment debtors ought to have raised the same at the time of disposal of the C.R.P. No.4672 of 2002. Therefore, the approach of the judgment debtors on one pretext or the other by interpreting the provisions at every stage, that too, after a lapse of 4 years after the restoration of the E.P., does not appear to be a bona fide one and consequently, an adverse inference can be drawn against the attitude of the judgment debtors that they want to drag on the proceedings on one pretext or the other. Apart from that, there is no dispute that the order under revision in C.R.P. No.4672 of 2002 has become final. If that being the case, the judgment debtors are prevented from raising the pleas by interpreting the provisions, which they have failed to agitate at the time of disposal of C.R.P. No.4672 of 2002. 7. In this background of the matter, I am of the view that the order under revision does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Hence, this revision petition is devoid of merits and as such, the same is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J July 08, 2010 KTL