THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.No.2320 of 2005 O R D E R: Decree holder in O.S.No.50 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Hindupur got the execution proceedings transferred from that Court to the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kadiri. It was numbered as E.P.No.2 of 2004. In that E.P., the property of respondent No.2/judgment debtor No.2 was sought to be attached which was disallowed by the Court below. Hence, this revision. The facts clearly disclose that petitioner has obtained a decree against the 1st respondent but sought to execute the same by attaching the property of 2nd respondent on the ground that 2nd respondent has undertaken to stand as surety and discharge the debt of 1st respondent as per the agreement between the 1st and the 2nd respondent dated 22.01.2003. The said agreement admittedly was a private arrangement outside the Court and as such, unless the said transaction between the 1st and the 2nd respondent satisfies the ingredients of Section 145 of C.P.C., the execution against the alleged guarantor cannot be proceed with. Court below has rightly appreciated this aspect. Counter filed by the 2nd respondent before the executing Court specifically states that she is the stranger to the suit and the decree and as such, E.P. cannot be filed against her as the alleged agreement relied upon was denied by her and she also contends that even if such an agreement exists, it does not create any right to proceed against the respondent/JDr. The said stand of the 2nd respondent is unassailable in view of categorical wording in Section 145 of C.P.C, that such guarantee must have been given under “an order of the Court in any suit or in any proceedings consequent thereon”. The said ingredient is not fulfilled and the Court below is right in refusing the attachment against 2nd respondent. I see no merits in this revision. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. This, however, does not preclude the petitioner/decree holder to recover the decretal amount from the 1st respondent and/or by filing appropriate proceedings against 2nd respondent in accordance with law, but the execution sought for against 2nd respondent is not permissible. ____________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,J 1st July, 2011 PNV