IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE FIFTH (5TH) DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1707 and 1708 of 2007 Between: The Cathelic Syrin Bank Ltd., Bhimavaram … Petitioner And: Bandaru Narasimharao & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition Nos.1707 and 1708 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: CRP No.1707 of 2007 is directed against the order dated 10.10.2006 in EP No.88 of 2002 and CRP No.1708 of 2007 is directed against the order in EA No.450 of 2005 in EP No.88 of 2002 in OS No.63 of 1988 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram, where under EA No.450 of 2005 was allowed and EP No.88 of 2002 was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. As the two revision petitions arose out of the common order between the same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The petitioner-Cathelic Syrian Bank, obtained a decree against the respondent/JDR for recovery of the amount due and filed EP No.88 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram, for bringing EP schedule property situated at Tadepallegudem for sale and also for simultaneous relief of arrest of the JDrs. The 2nd JDr filed counter, opposing EP, inter-alia contending that the court at Bheemavaram has no jurisdiction as the property is situated at Tadepallegudem out side jurisdiction of the court. The 2nd JDr filed separate application EA No.450 of 2005 seeking dismissal of EP on the same ground that the court at Bheemavaram has no jurisdiction to execute the decree in respect of the properties situated at Tadepallegudem. 4. It is not disputed that the petitioner-Bank filed suit OS No.63 of 1988 in the court of Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram based on a mortgage deed and obtained a decree on 07.12.1988. Subsequently, the DHr bank filed IA No.551 of 1989 for passing of final decree and on 27.10.1989 final decree was also passed. It is also not disputed that the decree was transferred to the court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepallegudem and EP No.26 of 2000 was filed before the said Court for realization of the decree debt by bringing the EP schedule property situated in Tadepallegudem municipal area for sale. The said EP No.26 of 2000 is stated to be pending. Subsequently, the DHr filed the present EP No.88 of 2002 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram for realization of the decretal amount by bringing the property situated in Tadepallegudem to sale. The JDrs raised objection regarding the maintainability of EP No.26 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepallegudem. The said objection was over-ruled by the execution court. Aggrieved by the same, the JDrs filed CRP No.766 of 2005 and this court by order dated 09.06.2005 dismissed the revision observing that it is open for the JDrs to raise objection in EP No.88 of 2002 regarding its maintainability in the court at Bheemavaram and the same cannot be a ground to reject EP No.26 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepallegudem. EP No.26 of 2000 is stated to be pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepallegudem. Admittedly, the property is situated within the municipal limits of Tadepallegudem. The petitioner/DHr is certainly entitled to recover the decretal amount by pursuing EP No.26 of 2000. Filing of fresh EP i.e., OP No.88 of 2002 before the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram, who passed the original decree, that too, seeking to proceed against the self same property situated within the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepallegudem is certainly not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that since it is a 12 years old decree, simultaneous relief of arrest of the JDrs 1 and 3 is also sought for in the EP and since the JDrs are residing within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram, the EP is maintainable. 6. As seen from the cause title in EP No.88 of 2002, the JDrs 1 and 2 are residing at Tadepallegudem and only 3rd JDr is residing at Bheemavaram. The said EP also shows that earlier EP No.26 of 2000 filed before the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepallegudem is still pending. Admittedly, the decree was transmitted to the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepallegudem and the said decree has not been re-transmitted back to the original court i.e., Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram. As the decree is already transmitted to the court of Senior Civil Judge, Tadepallegudem, the remedy of the DHr is to pursue with the EP No.26 of 2000, which is pending before the said court. If the DHr wants to proceed against the person of any of the JDrs, who happens to be residing within the jurisdiction of the Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram, the DHr would have to take steps for retransmission of the decree back to the original court at Bheemavaram. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner-DHr that notwithstanding the transmission of the decree to the court of Tadepallegudem and notwithstanding pendency of the EP before the said Court, a second EP is always maintainable before the original court, which passed the decree, is untenable. The impugned order allowing the EA No.450 of 2005 holding that the EP is not maintainable and dismissing EP No.88 of 2002 for the present, does not therefore call for interference. 7. In the result, both the revision petitions are dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 05.09.2011 bss