THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2725 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.21 of 1998 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kavali against the 2nd respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- on the basis of promissory notes. The suit was decreed ex parte. Thereafter, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.7 of 1999 for execution of the decree. An order of attachment against two items of immovable property viz., a house within Kavali town and agricultural land of Ac.4.95 cents in Survey No.327/2 of Jammalapalem Village was passed in July 1998. The appellant purchased the house through a sale deed, dated 24.05.1999. She filed E.A.No.334 of 1999 under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the attachment. The E.A. was dismissed by the executing Court on 13.07.2001. Hence, this C.M.A. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent obtained ex parte decree against the 2nd respondent and thereafter, obtained an order of attachment against two items of immovable property. The appellant purchased the first item, when the attachment was in force. It is a different matter that she pleaded that there was an agreement of sale, dated 09.03.1998. On his part, the 2nd respondent remained ex parte not only in the suit but also in the E.P. as well as in the claim petition. On behalf of the appellant, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.7 were filed. The 1st respondent deposed as R.W.1. The claim petition was dismissed by the executing Court. It is a matter of record that by the time the sale deed was executed in favour of the appellant by the 2nd respondent, the property was under attachment. This fact to a large extent belies the allegation of the appellant that there was collusion between respondents 1 and 2. Be that as it may, in case, there is another item of property, which can be brought to sale, there is no reason why the one purchased by the appellant alone must be sold. Even now, such a course can be adopted. Hence, the C.M.A. is partly allowed and the order under appeal is modified, directing that the executing Court shall proceed first against the second item of property attached in E.P.No.7 of 1999 viz., agricultural land of Ac.4.95 cents in Survey No.327/2 of Jammalapalem Village and in case, the sale proceeds thereof are not sufficient to meet the liability under the decree, it shall be open to the executing Court to proceed against the other item which is purchased by the appellant herein. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 26.08.2010 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.2725 of 2001 Date: 26.08.2010 JSU