THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1005 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.657 of 2002 in the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku, against the 2nd respondent for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed on 31.12.2002. Since the decree was not satisfied, the petitioner filed E.P.No.368 of 2003. An item of immovable property was attached and it was brought to sale. The petitioner participated in the auction after obtaining permission under Rule 72 of Order XXI C.P.C. and deposited the balance of consideration after adjusting the decretal amount. The 1st respondent filed E.A.No.1273 of 2005 by invoking various provisions of law, such as Sections 51 and 52 of the Provincial Insolvency Act and Section 151 C.P.C. Its contention was that the property that was brought to sale was earlier mortgaged to it by the 2nd respondent and in O.S.No.808 of 2002, a preliminary decree was passed on 27.03.2003. An additional fact that was pleaded was that the 2nd respondent filed I.P.No.23 of 2003 and during the subsistence of that, no execution proceedings are permissible. Through its order, dated 16.12.2005, the trial Court allowed the application directing the petitioner to deposit the entire amount offered in the auction. The same is challenged in this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The petitioner filed the E.P. after the decree obtained by him against the 2nd respondent became final. An item of immovable property was attached even before judgment and it was brought to sale. He participated in the auction with the permission of the Court and after adjusting the decretal amount, he deposited the balance to the credit of the E.P. The 1st respondent was also armed with a decree against the 2nd respondent and its effort was firstly to get the E.P. proceedings set aside by pleading that the 2nd respondent filed I.P. and in the alternative to get the rateable distribution of the sale proceeds. The E.A. was allowed. Section 73 of C.P.C. provides the manner in which the sale proceeds in the execution proceedings must be distributed whenever there exist more than one decree against the same property and the same individual. Not only the point of time of the decree but also the nature thereof assumes significance. In the instant case, the principal ground urged by the 1st respondent was that the 2nd respondent filed I.P. It is now reported that the I.P. has since been dismissed. The 1st respondent did not choose to file the decree said to have been obtained by him. Unless the relevant documents are part of record of the Court, it would be difficult to arrive at a just and proper conclusion, be it as regards the priority, enforceability or legality. Therefore, the civil revision petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal, duly giving opportunity to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. _________ 12.10.2009 JSU THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1005 of 2006 Date: 12.10.2009 JSU