HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION.2788 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of CPC, is directed against an order made in E.P. No.98 of 2008 in O.S. No.23 of 2007 dated 29-01-2010 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Sullurpet, Nellore District. 2. Petitioner herein is decree-holder and respondent herein is judgment-debtor. 3. Petitioner laid a suit in O.S. No.23 of 2007 for recovery of money. The said suit was decreed on 04-07-2007 and thereafter E.P. No.98 of 2008 was filed under Order – XXI Rules - 54, 64, & 66 of CPC for attachment and sale of the E.P. scheduled property. Here also, judgment-debtor remained ex parte. The said E.P., after detailed consideration, was dismissed. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision is filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that E.P. scheduled property was sold by the respondent, judgment-debtor, with an intention to frustrate the decree obtained by him. 5. Whereas, it was found by the execution Court that item No.1 of the E.P. scheduled property was sold away by the judgment-debtor by way of registered sale deed dated 22-12-2006 in favour of one Eedala Silpa and item No.2 was sold to one Rudrapati Saraswathi through a registered sale deed dated 22-12-2006 prior to filing of the present execution petition. This was, in fact, admitted by the petitioner, but it was stated by him that the said transaction was a benami one, therefore prayed the Court to attach the property. The execution Court ultimately finding that remedy for the decree-holder, petitioner, is not before that Court since the E.P. scheduled property was sold away long prior to filing of the present E.P., dismissed the E.P. as not maintainable. 6. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that execution Court has not committed any error calling for interference of this Court under Section 115 of CPC. 7. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is devoid of merits, as such, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 8. However, this will not preclude the petitioner from working out his remedies as available to him under law. _____________________ C.V. RAMULU, J July 21, 2010. PV