HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 1463 of 2010 Date: 16-07-2010 Between: Pippala Santhamma (died) and others ……….. Petitioners And Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others. ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P.No. 1463 of 2010 ORDER: This Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 24- 07-2008 in E.A.No.142 of 2008 in E.P.No.33 of 2008 in O.S.No.216 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam. 2. The first petitioner herein filed suit in O.S.No.216 of 2007 against respondents 2 and 3 herein and the said suit was decreed. Then the first petitioner filed E.P.No.33 of 2008 to attach the amount lying in the hands of A.P. State Industrial Development Corporation, Hyderabad (in short ‘Corporation’) and the Execution Court through the order, dated 16-04-2008 directed the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the Corporation/first respondent herein to attach the amount of Rs.8,93,819/- in the custody of the Corporation and further directed to send the amount to the Court to deposit the amount in P.D. account of the Court. The Managing Director of the Corporation filed E.A.No.142 of 2008 to set aside the order, dated 16-04-2008 contending 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. 3. The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge held that the Corporation is third party to the proceedings and it can be seen from the record that the Managing Director of the Judgment Debtor- company along with collateral security holders filed writ petiton challenging the action of the Corporation in selling the assets of their company and the Hon’ble High Court in its order, dated 01-06-2005 held that the sale of assets shall be subject to the further orders, and as there is an order from the Hon’ble High Court that the assets shall be disposed subject to the further orders of the Court, the order dealing with the sale proceeds is not sustainable and accordingly, allowed the Application. Aggrieved by the same, this Revision petition has been filed. 4. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that excess amount lying with the first respondent/Corporation, after adjusting the amount due to the Judgment debtors, does not exclusively belong to the Judgment debtors and that the first respondent/Corporation cannot withhold the said amount without sending the same to the Execution Court to the credit of the E.P. filed by the petitioners. 5. The learned counsel for the first respondent/ Corporation submits 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 petitioners, the Corporation cannot deal with the said amounts in any manner whatsoever. It is also contended by him that the petitioners did not take any steps either to implead the said owners of the properties offered as collateral security or put them on notice. The learned counsel for the first respondent/Corporation further submits that assuming that the writ petition challenging the sale conducted by the Corporation is allowed by this Court setting aside the sale, then 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 petitioners. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners have obtained a decree against respondents 2 and 3 and filed E.P. and that if the excess amount lying with the Corporation is deposited to the credit of the suit filed by the petitioners, the petitioners are prepared to give bank guarantee and once bank guarantee is given, the first respondent/ Corporation can realize the amount at any time, even without issuing notice to the petitioners and in the above circumstances, the interest of the first respondent/Corporation or the so called owners of the properties or any other person will not be affected. 7. Since the petitioners are offering bank guarantee, it appears that irrespective of the result of the said writ petition, the first respondent/Corporation can invoke the bank guarantee at any time and the interest of the first respondent/Corporation or any other person will be safe, and no prejudice will be caused to anybody. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned order, dated 24-07-2008 in E.A.No.142 of 2008 on condition of the petitioners furnishing bank guarantee till the disposal of the writ petition. In case of dismissal of the writ petition, the first respondent/Corporation is at liberty to invoke bank guarantee. The petitioners 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