HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2565 of 2011 Dated 15-09-2011 Between: Kasturi Krishnaiah. …Petitioner. And: Mullaguri Anjaneyulu. …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2565 of 2011 ORDER: This revision petitioner is the Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.60 of 2009. The 1st respondent is the decree holder in the said E.P. The 1st respondent Decree Holder filed E.P. for realization of the decreetal debt of Rs.1,13,182/-. He sought for attachment and sale of E.P. Schedule property which reads as herein under: SCHEDULE. “The lands situated in the Mallempalli village, H/o. Nagiripadu Revenue Village of Chitvel Mandal, Kadapa District. I-ITEM Lands situated in S.No. Extent Value 223 Ac.0.21/ ½ Rs. 4,300-00 206 Ac.1.00 Rs. 20,000-00 204 Ac.0.41 Rs. 12,300-00 225 Ac.0.22 Rs. 1,06,600-00 203 Ac.0.45 ½ Rs. 13,600-00 227 Ac.2.48 ½ Rs. 62,000-00 ___________ __________ Total Ac.4.78 ½ Rs. 1,18,800-00 ___________ ____________ BOUNDED BY : East: Lands of Machina Venkateswarlu, Kasthuri Yanadaiah and Tirupalaiah. West: Lands of Kasthuri Bhaskar, Kasthuri Venkataiah and Machina Venkata Subbaiah. South: Lands of Kasthuri Venkataiah and Machina Ramaiah. North: Lands of Kasthuri Yanadaiah and Nayanapati Rukminamma. II-ITEM R.C. Building constructed in S.No.226 an extent of 8 cents in Mallempalli village of Chitvel Mandal. BOUNDED BY: East: Lands of Kasthuri Subbarayudu and Kasthuri Ramaiah. West: Bata. South: Lands of Kasthuri Venkataiah. North: Lands of Kasthuri Yandaiah. Value of the Building: Rs.50,000/-.” 2. The petitioner/J.Dr. filed counter resisting the sale of E.P. schedule properties. He has taken up plea in the counter that he is not having any movable or immovable properties. He filed I.P.No.6 of 2007 before the Junior Civil Judge Rajampet and the Decree Holder has been shown as R.1 in I.P.No.6 of 2007. It is further stated in the counter that the land bearing S.Nos.223, 206, 204, 225, 203, 227 admeasuring Ac.4.78 ½ cents does not belong to him and one Saraswathamma and Sreenaidu are in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and he has no manner of right in the suit schedule property. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has filed I.P.No.6 of 2007 and an interim receiver has been appointed in the said I.P. and property owned by him has been handed over to the interim receiver on 12.7.2007, in which case, the executing Court cannot proceed with the sale of the properties. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no consistence in the plea of the petitioner /J.Dr. and therefore, he does not deserve for grant of any relief in this revision. 6. I have gone through the counter filed by the petitioner/J.Dr. in E.P.No.4 of 2007. He has taken the plea that the entire extent of Ac.4.78 ½ cents is not in his possession and it belongs to Saraswathamma and Sreenaiah. The petitioner/J.Dr. having taken such an application in E.P. does not deserve for any relief in this revision. 7. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. __________________________________ Justice B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date: 15.09.2011. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2565 of 2011 Dated 15-09-2011 Dvs