HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6814 of 2004 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6815 of 2004 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6816 of 2004 Date: September 09, 2010 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6814 of 2004 Between: Perumalla Chandra Shekar. .. Petitioner/Decree holder And 1. Korivi Sathyanarayana, rep. by G.P.A. Holder Gudipati Pandu Rangaiah and another. … Respondents * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6815 of 2004 Between: Perumalla Chandra Shekar. … Petitioner/Decree holder And 1. Kotha Venkateswarlu, rep. by G.P.A. Holder Gudipati Pandu Rangaiah and another. … Respondents * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6816 of 2004 Between: Perumalla Chandra Shekar. … Petitioner/Decree holder And 1. M/s. Surya Traders, Haliya, rep. by G.P.A. Holder Gudipati Pandu Rangaiah and another. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6814 of 2004 CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6815 of 2004 and CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6816 of 2004 COMMON ORDER: All the three civil revision petitions arose out of the execution proceedings in the same E.P. No.135 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalaguda and by orders dated 17.11.2004, the executing court has allowed E.A. No.73 of 2004, E.A. No.74 of 2004 and E.A. No.75 of 2004 in the said execution petition. 2. The execution applications were filed by the decree-holders in O.S. No.156 of 2001, O.S. No.157 of 2001 and O.S. No.24 of 1999 claiming that there were decrees in their favour in the respective suits against the same judgment-debtor and they also got attached the same property in respective interlocutory applications in their suits. The decree-holders respectively claimed that towards the amounts due under the respective decrees, they are entitled to rateable distribution of the proceeds realized by the auction sale of the execution petition schedule property after confirmation of the sale. 3. The said request was resisted by the decree-holder executing his decree in E.P. No.135 of 2000 contending that the three decree holders did not file any execution petition for execution of their respective decrees as on the date of receipt of the sale proceeds of the property in his execution petition and consequently they are not entitled to rateable distribution in terms of Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The executing court passed identical orders in all the three matters referring to Section 73 of the Code of Civil Procedure and opining that the decree holders were entitled to rateable distribution as claimed. 4. Against the orders allowing the execution applications in terms of Section 73 of CPC, the decree holder in E.P. No.135 of 2000 filed these revisions contending that the execution petitions were filed by the decree holders claiming rateable distribution only on 06.4.2004 much after the receipt of the sale proceeds of the auction sale on 01.4.2004. As the execution petitions were not pending by the time of the realization of the sale proceeds, the revision petitioner contended that the other decree holders are not entitled for rateable distribution of the sale proceeds. 5. Heard Sri B. Parameswara Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri P. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel for the respective decree-holders. None entered appearance on behalf of judgment-debtor in the revision petitions. 6. In all the three revision petitions, this Court granted interim stay of withdrawal for a period of two weeks, on 18.01.2005 and later extended the said order till 25.3.2005 and did not pass any further order continuing the interim stay thereafter. 7. Sri P. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel for the respective decree-holders submitted that after expiry of the period of interim stay granted by this Court, the sale proceeds of the execution petition were paid in full to the revision petitioner himself as per the orders in E.A. No.262 of 2004 in E.P. No.58 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda and that he challenged the said orders dated 05.02.2010 by way of a civil revision petition before this Court which is yet to be taken on file. Copy of the said order shown by Sri P. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel shows that a cheque for the amount due towards full satisfaction of the execution petition was directed to be issued in favour of the revision petitioner himself. 8. As the legality and justifiability of the said order will be the subject matter of the revision filed by Sri P. Sreerama Murthy, learned counsel, and as nothing still remains to the credit of this execution petition to be still distributed, the civil revision petitions have to be closed as infructuous, more so, in view of sub-section (2) of Section 73 of the CPC which mandates that where all or any of the assets liable to be rateably distributed under this Section are paid to a person not entitled to receive the same, any person so entitled may sue such person to compel him to refund the assets. 9. Therefore, these three civil revision petitions are closed as unnecessary. No costs. ________________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: September 09, 2010. BSB