THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1561 of 2010 (Dated : 02-02-2011) Between: Md. Faizuddin S/o Irbahim …Petitioner A n d Uri Babu S/o Nadipi Balaiah …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1561 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 29.3.2010 passed in E.A.No.156 of 2009 in E.P.No.53 of 2008 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Kollapur, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge ordered for auction of mill machinery which has already been attached. 2. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 13.4.2010. The petitioner has been directed to take out notice to the respondent and file proof of service. The petitioner took out notice and filed proof of service. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. None appears on behalf of the respondent-decree holder. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner sought for sale of the property other than the area covered by mill machinery and whereas the executing Court ordered for sale of the mill machinery and therefore, the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. A further submission has been made that the petitioner needs two months’ time to pay the balance E.P amount. 5. I have gone through the application filed by the petitioner before the executing Court. The relief sought for by the petitioner before the executing Court in the application filed under Order 21 Rule 64 CPC reads as hereunder:- “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to fix up part of schedule E.P property for auction out of 1965 square yards in the G.P limits of Kollapur in the interests of justice”. 6. The executing Court having gone through the affidavit filed in support of the petition, proceeded to put auction of the mill machinery, which has already been attached. There is no flaw in the order passed by the executing Court warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 CPC. However, since the petitioner already paid an amount of Rs.50,000/- out of Rs.1,21,000/-, I deem it appropriate to grant two months’ time to the petitioner to pay the balance E.P amount. 7. Accordingly, this revision is disposed of granting two months time to the petitioner-Judgment Debtor to pay the balance E.P amount. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.02-02-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.1561 of 2010 (Dated : 02-02-2011)