THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6334 of 2009 ORDER: Heard both sides. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 14.12.2009, passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur in E.A.No.96 of 2008 in E.P.No.92 of 2008 in O.S.No.463 of 1991, whereunder the petition filed under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to implead the petitioner therein as second judgment-debtor in the E.P. proceedings was dismissed. It is the case of the petitioner herein that on 09.12.2004, he purchased the E.P. schedule property from the third respondent-judgment debtor under an agreement of sale for a consideration of Rs.15,90,000/- and that the third respondent also handed over the relevant document to him at the time of execution of sale agreement-cum-General Power of Attorney. He further contended that believing the words of the judgment-debtor that there are no debts on the E.P. schedule property, he purchased the same and paid the entire amount. Subsequently, he learnt that respondents 1 and 2 obtained decree and filed execution petition against the third respondent. Hence, he sought to be impleaded in the E.P. proceedings. It is borne out from the record that respondents 1 and 2-decree holders filed the suit being O.S.No.463 of 1991 for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 10.12.1990, and the same was decreed on 02.11.2004 and that Execution Petition No.92 of 2009 was also filed in that regard, seeking direction to the judgment-debtor to execute registered sale deed in their favour in pursuance of the decree passed thereunder and that, while the said E.P. was pending, the petitioner herein, who is a third party to the suit, filed the present application before the Court below. However, it is the case of the petitioner, who is a third party, that the third respondent-judgment debtor executed agreement of sale in his favour on 09.12.2004 i.e., after the suit was decreed in favour of respondents 1 and 2-decree-holders on 02.11.2004. The appeal preferred as against the said decree was dismissed and hence, the said decree attained finality. Therefore, the said transaction between the third respondent herein and the petitioner herein is hit by Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act. More over, the said decree, which attained finality, is binding on the third respondent-judgment debtor which implies that it is also binding on the petitioner herein who stepped into the shoes of the third respondent-judgment debtor. In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the Court below in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED​ 25th February 2011 DR