THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3323 OF 2009 Date: 13-08-2009 Between The Fishermen Co-operative Society Ltd., No. C125, Srikrishnapatnam, rep., by its President tallari Chinni, S/o Sarayya, Aged about 29 years, R/o. Srikrishnapatnam (V), Rajanagaram Mandal, East Godavari District …..Petitioner Sri K. Ratnam, Ex-President and another …..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3323 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision under Section 115 of CPC by the judgment debtor questioning the correctness of order dated 26-06-2009 of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, East Godavari District passed in E.P No. 10 of 2009 in Arbitration Case No. 2 of 2005, whereby the learned Judge allowed the E.P by appointing an advocate – Receiver to take possession of the E.P schedule property with a direction to conduct public auction of the fish available in the E.P schedule property, as per rules after giving wide publicity and deposit the sale proceeds into the Court. It is not disputed that the petitioner – judgment debtor suffered an award in Arbitration Case No. 2 of 2005 and aggrieved by the same, it filed O.A No. 99 of 2006 before the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Tribunal, Visakhapatnam, which is pending. Since there is no stay in the appeal, the respondent – decree holder filed the above E.P for execution of the decree. Except pleading that it filed an appeal against the award, no other plea was taken by the petitioner to contest the E.P. Since the award passed by the Arbitrator under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act is executable under Rule 49 (6) (c) of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rule, the Executing Court is well within its jurisdiction to appoint a Receiver to take possession of E.P schedule property, conduct auction and to deposit proceeds to the credit of the E.P for due recovery of the award amount from the judgment debtor. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the highest bidder has not deposited the amount and the required procedure has not been followed in conducting the sale. If that be the case, the petitioner is always at liberty to move the Executing Court under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC for setting aside the sale or for consequential orders. Since no illegality is discernible in the order passed by the lower Court in exercise of its jurisdiction, the revision petition is dismissed. A. GOPAL REDDY, J 13-08-2009 ks