HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 1274 of 2008 Date: 16-07-2010 Between: Pippala Venkataramanamurthy ……….. Petitioner And D.R. organics Pvt. Ltd. and another ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 1274 of 2008 ORDER: This Revision petition is directed against the order, dated 29- 02-2008 in E.A.No.50 of 2008 in E.A.No.24 of 2008 in E.P.No.3 of 2008 in O.S.No.214 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No.214 of 2007 against the respondents herein and the said suit was decreed on 28- 12-2007. Then the petitioner filed E.P.No.3 of 2008 along with an Application in E.A.No.24 of 2008 to attach the amount lying in the hands of A.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, Hyderabad (in short “Corporation’) and the said Application has been allowed through the order, dated 04-02-2005. Then the petitioner filed an Application under Order 46(b) of C.P.C. seeking direction to the Managing Director of the Corporation to show cause for non-compliance of the orders, dated 04-02-2005. 3. The case of Managing Director of the Corporation is that W.P.No.13204 of 2005 has been pending on the file of this Court and in view of the pendency of the said writ petition, the amount could not be sent to the Court. It is also their case that if the sale is set aside for any reason, the entire amount has to be deposited by the Corporation and so the amount lying with them is not the amount absolutely belonging to the Judgment Debtors. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge holding that the litigation has been pending before this Court and the amount lying with the Corporation is not free from the dispute and in case the sale is set aside, the amount has to be returned back to the auction purchaser and therefore, the explanation offered by the Corporation has been accepted resulting in the dismissal of the Application filed by the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision Petition has been filed. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that excess amount lying with the Corporation, after adjusting the amount due to the Judgment debtors, does not exclusively belong to the Judgment debtors and that the Corporation cannot withhold the said amount without sending the same to the Execution Court to the credit of the E.P. filed by the petitioner. 5. Now an affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Corporation by its Manager (Legal) by name E.V. Koteswar Rao contending that the surplus amounts lying with the Corporation do not belong solely to the Judgments debtors and that the said amounts belong to the owners of the properties offered as collateral securities as well as to the Judgment debtors, and in the event the owners of the properties claim preferential payment, then the said amounts have to be paid to them. It is also contended that unless the owners of the properties give their consent for release of the amounts in favour of the petitioner/decree holder, the Corporation cannot deal with the said amounts in any manner whatsoever. It is also contended by him that the petitioner did not take any steps either to implead the said owners of the properties offered as collateral security or put them on notice. 6. The learned counsel for the Corporation also submits that even assuming that the writ petition challenging the sale conducted by the Corporation is allowed by this Court setting aside the sale, the Corporation has to refund the entire sale consideration including the surplus amount to the auction purchaser and in the event the said writ petition is dismissed upholding the sale conducted by the Corporation, then the Corporation will have to pay the said amount to the owners of the properties offered as collateral security and in either circumstance, the Corporation has to invoke the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner and in view of the same, the proposal of offering bank guarantee would be of no help to the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has obtained a decree against the respondents and has filed E.P. and that if the excess amount lying with the Corporation is deposited to the credit of the suit filed by the petitioner, the petitioner is prepared to give bank guarantee and once bank guarantee is given, the Corporation can realize the amount at any time even without issuing notice to the petitioner and in the above circumstances, the interest of the Corporation or the so called owners of the properties or any other person will not be affected. 8. Since the petitioner is offering bank guarantee, it appears that irrespective of the result of the said writ petition, the Corporation can invoke the bank guarantee at any time and the interest of the Corporation or any other person will be safe, and no prejudice will be caused to anybody. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 29-02-2008 in E.A.No.50 of 2008 on condition of the petitioner furnishing bank guarantee till the disposal of the writ petition. In case of dismissal of the writ petition, the Corporation is at liberty to invoke bank guarantee. The petitioner shall renew the bank guarantee before one week of its expiration. The amount lying with the Corporation shall be credited to the E.P. account. No order as to costs. ___________________ B. CHANDRA KUMAR, J Date: 16-07-2010 YCR