IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5988 of 2008 BETWEEN: Kalagadda Mariyadasu. ... PETITIONER AND Kalagadda Prabhudasu. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner : MR. L.J. VEERA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent : ---NONE APPEARED--- The Court made the following: ORDER: The judgment debtor in E.P.No.62 of 2007 resisted the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent herein on the ground that the EP schedule property over which attachment was sought is an assigned land and as such, the decree is not executable against the aforesaid property. 2. On the said objection of the judgment debtor, enquiry was made by the executing Court and in spite of considering oral and documentary evidence produced by the judgment debtor and as per evidence of R.W.2, the Court below held that no such site is assigned to the judgment debtor even after verification of DK Register. The Court below, therefore, gave a finding on fact that the judgment debtor has failed to establish any material to conclude that EP schedule property is assigned property. Consequently, the judgment debtor’s objections were overruled. Questioning the same, this revision is preferred by the judgment debtor. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the nature of the schedule property being an assigned land was established before the executing Court and the petitioner questions the said finding of the executing Court, as referred to above. 5. In the light of the submission aforesaid it would be immediately noticed that the finding of fact arrived at by the Court below is based upon the official records, which were called for running into 59 pages and in the said DK Register relevant page was marked as Ex.A2. The Court below has also seen the evidence of R.W.2, who in his cross-examination has confirmed that as per entries in the said register the said site is not assigned to the judgment debtor and as such, the very certificate granted by the Tahsildar, Chirala under Ex.R1 was doubted, which is not supported by DK Register. The Court below, therefore, has rightly come to the conclusion that there is no material to support the claim of the judgment debtor. I see no reasons to interfere with the impugned order. 6. However, keeping in view, the fact that there has been interim stay of execution of the decree in favour of the petitioner since 31.12.2008, I deem it appropriate to grant two (2) months time to the petitioner to deposit the amount covered under the execution petition aforesaid, failing which the executing Court shall be free to execute the decree in accordance with law. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J August 4, 2010 DSK