IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4839 OF 2009 Between : Vadde Venkateswarlu .... PETITIONER A N D Shriram Chits Pvt.Ltd. …RESPONDENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4839 OF 2009 O R D E R: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short ‘C.P.C’) is directed against the order, dated 21.08.2009, in E.A.No.62 of 2008 in E.P.No.735 of 2006 in O.S.No.679 of 2000 on the file of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, whereunder and whereby, an application filed under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to raise the attachment order dated 12.12.2007, passed in the E.P. was dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner / judgment debtor No.4 contended that the present is petition filed by the decree holder in collusion with other judgment debtors, and that E.P. No.735 of 2006 was filed by the decree holder with a view to create problems to the petitioner who is a poor person, that though the principal borrower is a Government servant, execution petition is not filed against him, and therefore, he prays to set aside the same. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / decree holder contended that the decree passed by the trial court is joint and several and the decree holder can proceed with execution any one of the judgment debtors, and that judgment debtor No.1 was removed from service and other Judgment debtors are not residing within the jurisdiction of the trial Court and therefore, there are no grounds to set aside the same. 4. The factual matrix is not in dispute. The decree passed against all the judgment debtors has become final and it is binding on all the defendants which is joint and several. Therefore, the decree holder can proceed against all the defendants or any one of the defendants. As the case does not fall under Order XXI Rule 26 C.P.C., the question of setting aside the order dated 21.08.2009, does not arise and the trial right passed the order within the parameters of law, and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J NOVEMBER 29, 2010. YVL