HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY Rev.C.R.P.M.P.No.7075 of 2011, C.R.P.M.P.No.5020 of 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2944 OF 2009 DATE:09-12-2011 BETWEEN Kolapalli Satyanarayana …Revision petitioner AND Sammela Lakshmi and another …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY Rev.C.R.P.M.P.No.7075 of 2011, C.R.P.M.P.No.5020 of 2011 AND CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2944 OF 2009 ORDER: Rev.C.R.P.M.P.No.7075 of 2011 is filed by the decree holder to review the order dated 24.6.2011 passed in C.R.P.No.2944 of 2009 and also the order dated 2.9.2011 in CRPMP.No.5020 of 2011 filed for extension of time for deposit of amount as ordered in the revision. The revision was filed by third party in E.P.No.73 of 2008 in O.S.No.315 of 2005 aggrieved by the orders dated 15.4.2009 in allowing the E.P. and issuing attachment warrant in respect of the E.P. schedule property. The decree holder filed the above E.P. against the second judgment debtor, who is the revision petitioner, whose property was offered as security at the time of attachment of schedule property in the main suit for due realization of the decretal amount. As the Judgment debtor did not pay the amount as per the decree passed in the suit, the decree holder filed E.P.No.103 of 2007 for sale of the E.P. schedule property but as the same was dismissed as not pressed, in the suit he filed I.A.No.408 of 2005 for attachment of schedule property under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C. and towards the third party security, the property which is now sought to be attached was produced. Therefore, the impugned E.P. was filed for attachment of the said property, which was given as third party security and also for sale of the same for realization of the decretal amount. The petitioner-second judgment debtor filed a counter contending that the property cannot be attached under the decree, that the surety is not the surety for a debt, and the property which is attached exclusively belongs to the surety, who gave an undertaking before the Court to the effect that he would not alienate the said property till the disposal of the case and that for attachment petition only the surety was given but not for the debt. In the absence of surety, the decree has been passed against him, that he is not a judgment debtor and his son’s property cannot be attached under the decree. He is neither a creditor nor a debtor. The executing Court by the impugned order rejected the said objection stating that the second judgment debtor produced the original of the title deed of the E.P. schedule property along with encumbrance certificate and valuation certificate which are in his name and as a surety, he is liable to pay the E.P. amount as his liability is co-extensive with that of the first judgment debtor. Thus the executing Court rightly rejected the objection of the second judgment debtor. Pending the revision, on the undertaking given by the revision petitioner herein that he will deposit the decretal amount within two weeks, the C.R.P. was disposed of on 24.6.2011 permitting the revision petitioner-first respondent herein to deposit the entire decretal amount within four weeks by giving credit to the amount, if any, already deposited and on such deposit, the decree holder-review petitioner herein was permitted to withdraw the same. It was made clear that in default, the executing Court can proceed with the execution of the decree. But, now the review petitioner-decree holder submits that the revision petitioner failed to comply with the conditional order of this Court by depositing the half of the decretal amount and therefore, the executing Court proceeded with the sale, conducted auction for sale of the property on 9.2.2011, where the review petitioner stood as highest bidder and the sale was confirmed in her favour on 8.7.2011 and a sale certificate was also issued on 22.7.2011. But the said fact was not brought to the notice of this Court when the revision petitioner filed CRPMP.No.5020 of 2011 seeking two weeks time for depositing of decreetal amount as per orders in the revision dated 24.6.2011. In the circumstances, Rev.CRPMP.No.7075 of 2011 is ordered and the impugned order passed by this Court in C.R.P.No.2944 of 2009 dated 24.6.2011 and also the order dated 2.9.2011 in CRPMP.No.5020 of 2011 are hereby recalled. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order passed by the executing Court warranting interference by this Court. The revision is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 09, 2011 Tsr.