THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH (27TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2266 of 2006 Between: M. Venkatalakshmi Prakash & another … Petitioners And: Official Receiver, District Court Premises, Guntur & another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.2266 of 2006 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 24.03.2006 in EA No.202 of 2001 in EP No.19 of 2001 in OS No.20 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein under Order XXI Rule 101 CPC seeking direction to the first respondent-Official Receiver, to delete the petition schedule properties, was dismissed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed OS No.20 of 1998 against their father for partition and separate possession of 1/3rd share in the plaint schedule properties. The said suit was decreed ex-parte on 19.04.1999 and preliminary decree was passed. Subsequent to filing of the suit, father of the petitioners filed IP No.36 of 1998 before the District Judge, Guntur, which was re-numbered as IP No.15 of 2000 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, showing the petitioners herein as respondents 37 and 38 and the 2nd respondent herein-Creditor as 18th respondent. The said IP, it appears, was not contested. On 03.04.2001, IP No.15 of 2000 was allowed and the father of the petitioners herein was declared as insolvent. Meanwhile, the petitioners filed IA No.976 of 1999 for passing of final decree in OS No.20 of 1998 and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to effect division of the properties by metes and bounds. The report filed by the Advocate Commissioner was accepted and final decree was passed on 06.04.2000. The petitioners filed EP No.19 of 2001 for execution of the decree. Though the Official Receiver was impleaded, he did not contest the E.P. It is stated that on 25.06.2001 possession was delivered to the petitioners in pursuance of the decree and on 11.07.2001, the E.P. was closed. Subsequently, on 29.08.2001, the petitioners filed the present EA No.202 of 2001 impleading the Official Receiver as first respondent and the creditor-R.18 in the IP as 2nd respondent, seeking a direction to the Official Receiver to delete the properties, which are said to have been delivered to them in the E.P. The said application was dismissed by the execution Court. Hence, the present revision petition. 4. As seen from the above, the 2nd respondent herein was not a party to the suit OS No.20 of 1998 and he was also not a party to E.P.No.19 of 2001. He was first time impleaded in the present EA No.202 of 2001 as 2nd respondent. Further, the present EA No.202 of 2001 was filed on 29.08.2001, which is subsequent to termination of E.P. on 11.07.2001. By the time the present EA No.202 of 2001 is filed, EP was not pending and the execution proceedings pursuant to the decree were already terminated. The question of giving any direction to the first respondent-Official Receiver as prayed for does not arise in the present proceedings, inasmuch as, EP was terminated on 11.07.2001 itself, much prior to filing of EA No.202 of 2001. The present application EA No.202 of 2001 is therefore, misconceived and not maintainable. It is open to the petitioners to avail other remedies, if any available under law. The impugned order dismissing EA No.202 of 2001 does not call for any interference. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is disposed of with liberty as stated above. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 27.04.2011 bss