THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3783 of 2010 27.8.2010 Between: Goli Vijaya Nirmala, W/o.Ramakrishnareddy …Petitioner and Sri Rama Financial Services, Eluru, represented by its Partner, Pokuri Sriramulu, S/o.Mallikharjuna Rao And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3783 of 2010 ORDER: The first respondent herein is the Decree Holder (D.Hr). He filed the suit being O.S.No.115 of 2003 for recovery of amount based on mortgage. The suit was decreed against the second respondent (principal borrower). The petitioner herein is second Judgment Debtor (J.Dr). First respondent filed E.P.No.313 of 2007 for recovery of decretal amount in a sum of Rs.4,05,074/- by attachment and sale of house site admeasuring Acs.0.24½ situated at Chintalapudi Village in West Godavari District. The petitioner opposed the E.P. inter alia on the ground that the E.P. is not maintainable and that the E.P. schedule is vague and not correct, that she availed an amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as loan from State Bank of Hyderabad for children’s education by mortgaging the property and that the schedule property is worth more than Rs.15,00,000/- and, therefore, it cannot be allowed to be sold in execution of the decree. Considering the objections, the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Eluru, passed orders on 21.6.2010 and ordered that the D.Hr can proceed with the sale of immovable property. Aggrieved by the same, second J.Dr filed the instant civil revision petition. The Counsel relies on Order XXI Rule 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) and the decision of Supreme Court in Ambati Narasaiah v M.Subba Rao[1] and submits that the value of the E.P. Schedule property is Rs.19,00,000/- and, therefore, the same cannot be brought to sale for recovery of decretal amount of Rs.4,05,740/-. Indisputably, the petitioner, as claimed in her counter affidavit, owns 268 Sq.yards but not Acs.0.24½. There is also building thereon. The petitioner also did dispute the correctness of the boundaries mentioned in the E.P. schedule. Therefore she cannot have any objection for sale of property in execution of the decree. It would be too premature for the petitioner to contend that the entire E.P. schedule property cannot be sold. It is always open to any of the J.Drs to come forward and offer only that portion of the schedule property, which would satisfy the decree. This Court, in that view of the matter, does not find any error on the face of the record, which requires interference. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. __________________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) August 27, 2010. YS [1] AIR 1990 SC 119