HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 1587 OF 2009 Friday, the Eleventh day of March, Two Thousand and Eleven Between Devarasetty Prabhakar Rao Petitioner AND Ravuru Rajagopala Naidu and others Respondents ORDER: The petitioner is the decree holder who is said to have obtained decree in OS No. 41 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, which was transferred from the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Srikakulam. It is stated that the petitioner filed E.P. No.18 of 2007 in the suit OS No. 41 of 1989 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for attachment and sale of item No.3 of the E.P. Schedule property belonging to the judgment debtor No.4 for recovery of the E.P. amount. A counter was filed stating that the petitioner herein previously filed E.P. No. 156 of 2003 for the attachment of item Nos.2 and 3 and the item No.3 which was given as security, was released on payment of money by the judgment debtor No.3 and as such the decree holder filed a Memo dated 14.7.2005. I have perused the Memo filed by the decree holder dated 14.7.2005, which states that the judgment debtor No.3 had paid an amount of Rs.3,15,000/- to the decree holder towards her share and on receipt of the said amount towards full satisfaction of the claim against the judgment debtor No.3, the decree holder has no objection to release the property i.e. item Nos. 2 and 3 of the E.P. Schedule property, as the decree holder does not intend to proceed against the said properties, in view of the payment made by the judgment debtor No.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that once the item No.3 was released from the E.P. proceedings and a memo is filed to the effect that the decree holder does not intend to proceed against the property i.e. item No.3, he cannot proceed against the said property once again. However, if there are any other properties that are available to be proceeded with, it is always open for the decree holder to proceed against the same, but after filing memo recording full and final satisfaction and to the effect that he does not intend to proceed against item No.3 of the E.P. schedule, he cannot, once again, proceed against the same property for non-payment of the decreetal amount by the other judgment debtors. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ___________________ Justice V.Eswaraiah March 11, 2011 MAS