IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5250 OF 2009 Between: Rachakonda Narendar .....PETITIONER AND Chinta Suresh ....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5250 OF 2009 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is filed against the order, dated 20.08.2009, in E.P.No.9 of 2006 in O.S.No.103 of 2002, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, whereunder and whereby, the trial Court ordered attachment of the movable properties of the petitioner/judgment debtor on payment of process fee. 2. Heard both sides. 3. On two grounds the impugned order is under challenge here. One is that the transferee Court has no jurisdiction to execute the decree six months after transferring decree and secondly, no enquiry is conducted by the trial Court while attaching the movable properties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of Madras High Court in P.M.A.Vellappa Chettiar v. S.N.Subrahmaniyam[1], wherein it is held thus: “The aim of the Rule is to compel the decree-holder to take prompt steps to enforce the decree. The rule is in the nature of an instruction or direction to the Court to return the papers to the transmitting Court, if no steps were taken by the decree-holder within six months to execute the decree. A violation of this rule does not render the proceedings taken void ab initio.” 5. Rule 208(2) of the Civil Rules of Practice reads thus: “If the decree-holder does not, within six months from the date of the receipt of the decree on such transfer, apply for execution thereof, the court to which the decree has been sent shall certify the fact that no application for execution has been made to the court which passed the decree and shall return the decree to that court.” So from the above rule and in view of the decision in P.M.A.Vellappa Chettiar’s case (supra), it cannot be said that the decree-holder cannot execute the decree even after a lapse of six months in the transferee Court. The case on hand underwent several adjournments and enquiry was contemplated as required under Order 21 Rule 51 C.P.C. No provision was brought to the notice of this Court that in case of movable attachment an enquiry has to be conducted. Even, otherwise, PW.1 was examined and he was not cross-examined by the Judgment debtor. Hence, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. . _______________ K.C. BHANU, J August 06, 2010 MD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5250 OF 2009 August 06, 2010 [1] AIR 1915 Madras 920