IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH (11TH) DAY OF MARCH, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.5517 of 2002 Between: Nuka Gurucharanam … Petitioner And: Food Corporation of India, Warangal … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SRI G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.5517 of 2002 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 04.10.2002 in EP No.17 of 2000 in OS No.131 of 1982 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, wherein, the execution Court directed attachment of the schedule property by over-ruling the objections raised in the counter by the petitioner herein-JDr. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The respondent herein-Food Corporation of India, obtained a decree against the petitioner for recovery of certain amounts due. In execution of the decree, the respondent herein filed EP No.17 of 2000 for recovery of Rs.2,14,448/-, besides costs. The petitioner filed counter opposing the execution petition, raising three grounds, namely, seeking two modes of execution, simultaneous attachment of the property and also sending the JDr to civil prison, is not maintainable and that the property sought to be attached does not belong to the JDr and thirdly, the petitioner herein also obtained a decree in OS No.125 of 1981 against the respondent herein-Food Corporation of India and filed E.P. for recovery of certain amount is still due to the petitioner from the respondent herein under the said decree. 4. Insofar as the first ground is concerned, as seen from the prayer in the E.P., the respondent/DHr has not sought simultaneous execution i.e., proceeding against the property and also the person of the JDr and what is prayed for is only attachment of the schedule property of the JDr and sale of the same or by proceeding personally against the JDr. Thus, the respondent/DHr has sought an alternative mode of execution, but not simultaneous execution, in the sense that the DHr has not resorted to both the modes of execution at the same time parallel to one another. The objection regarding the maintainability of the E.P. is therefore, unsustainable and they are rightly over-ruled by the execution Court. However, instead of passing a cryptic order over-ruling the objections raised by the JDr, the Court would have done well by passing a reasoned order setting out the reasons for rejection of contentions raised by the petitioner/JDr. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/DHr would submit that the petitioner/JDr has not complied with the interim order dated 28.03.2003 in CRP MP No.22784 of 2002 where under, the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.15,000/-. 6. The petitioner has already gained nearly eight years of time since filing of the revision. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order directing attachment of the schedule property in execution of the decree is held not liable to be interfered with. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 11.03.2011 bss