IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6109 OF 2009 BETWEEN Boddapu Krishna. …PETITIONER AND Gannamraju China Jogarao and others. …RESPONDENTS Counsel for the petitioner: SMT. M. BHASKARA LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent: MR. P. RAJASHEKAR The Court made the following: - ORDER: The judgment debtor in EP.No.94 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Yelamanchili, objected to the sale of attached property in execution of decree obtained by the respondents/decree holders against him and seeks to question the order of the executing Court dated 31.08.2009 rejecting his objection to the sale of attached property. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The petitioner contended that he is not the owner of the attached property and set up title in some third parties. The Court below on consideration of the evidence and material on record found that the property was sold pending the suit. The respondents/decree holders had filed an application for attachment before judgment in which the petitioner/judgment debtor gave an undertaking that he will not sell, alienate or transfer the schedule property to third parties. It is, therefore, not open for the petitioner to now contend that under subsequent documents third parties have acquired title. The Court below, therefore, rightly rejected the contention of the petitioner and directed the sale of the schedule property by issuance of notice under Order 21 Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 4. The amount involved in the execution petition on the date of EP is Rs.38,400/-. The value of the property appears to be substantial and in view of the undertaking of the petitioner/judgment debtor, he cannot be heard to say that he alienated the property notwithstanding the undertaking. I, therefore, find no substance in the claim made by the petitioner. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted time to pay the decretal amount on or before 31.01.2011 failing which the executing Court shall be free to execute the decree in accordance with law. If the amount is deposited, as above, the respondents/decree holders are permitted to withdraw the same without furnishing any security. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 23, 2010 DSK