IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.505 and 506 of 2009 BETWEEN Pratha Lakshmi Narasimham. ... PETITIONER AND Smt. Aravalli Visalakshmi. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. A.V. SESHA SAI Counsel for the Respondent: MR. K.A. NARASIMHAM The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: CRP.No.505 of 2009 is directed against dismissal of E.A.No.204 of 2006 and CRP.No.506 of 2009 is filed against consequential dismissal of E.P.No.35 of 2006. 2. The facts in brief are that the petitioner is the decree holder in the suit O.S.No.8 of 2003, for recovery of amount based on mortgage, which was decreed with interest on 31.12.2004. The said preliminary decree was confirmed by final decree on 22.06.2006 for bringing the mortgaged property for sale. Meanwhile, the respondent/judgment debtor filed A.S.No.707 of 2006 before this Court and though interim stay was granted subject to condition, he failed to comply with the condition and thereby, the stay against the final decree stood vacated. The petitioner, thereafter, filed E.P.No.35 of 2006. As the respondent/judgment debtor had made constructions over the mortgaged property, the application E.A.No.204 of 2006 was filed in the EP for amending of EP schedule. The said application was opposed by the respondent/judgment debtor and was dismissed by the Court below holding that it was not open for the decree holder to amend the decree schedule at the stage of execution. Consequent to the dismissal of EA, the EP also was dismissed. Hence, these two revision petitions. 3. After hearing both the learned counsel and particularly, the vehement opposition by the respondent’s counsel, I am not able to appreciate the approach of the Court below inasmuch as the dismissal of the EP amounts to frustrating the decree for recovery of substantial amount granted in favour of the petitioner by a competent Court. The executing Court has also failed to keep in mind that accretions made to the mortgaged property during the subsistence of mortgage prima facie enure to the benefit of the mortgagee. It is also not appreciated that at the time of mortgage, the mortgaged property was only a vacant site and subsequent additions or accretions thereon are part of the mortgaged property itself and only for the sake of proper description, the petitioner wanted to amend the EP schedule. The subsequent accretions by the respondent/judgment debtor over the mortgaged property cannot and ought not be allowed to frustrate the decree itself. 4. In that view, therefore, the impugned orders are wholly unsustainable and irrespective of the Court below permitting the amendment of EP schedule for the purpose of proper identification, the EP can never be dismissed as a consequence. The impugned orders are accordingly set aside. The Court below shall restore the EP to its file and consider and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law in E.A.No.204 of 2006 afresh. The civil revision petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 30, 2011 DSK