The Hon’ble Sri Justice R.Subhash Reddy Civil Revision Petition No.3471 of 2010 Order: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’), is filed by the judgment debtor in OS.No.10 of 1997, assailing order, dated 21-07-2010, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Mahabubabad, in EA.No.31 of 2009 in EP.No.3 of 2009. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under: The respondent filed O.S.No.10 of 1997 for recovery of money and the same was decreed on 10-12-2001. During the pendency of the said suit, properties of the petitioner were attached and the said attachment orders continued. The respondent also filed an application for appointment of receiver to collect the income derived from the attached properties so as to make good the same towards the decretal amount. While so, the son of the petitioner filed another suit being OS.No.7 of 2001 seeking partition of the joint family properties, which include the properties, which were attached. Hence, the petitioner filed EA.No.31 of 2009 seeking to close EP.No.3 of 2009, but the same was dismissed. While the respondent-decree holder filed EP.No.3 of 2009 for execution of the decree passed in OS.No.10 of 1997, the petitioner herein has filed EA.31 of 2009 to close the EP itself. The lower Court by the impugned order has dismissed the same. In this Civil Revision Petition, it is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that when there is an order appointing receiver to recover income from the attached properties so as to make good the same towards the decretal amount, the present EP cannot be maintained. It is to be noticed that EP.No.3 of 2009 has not yet been ordered. When the EP itself is pending, the petitioner cannot file EA under Section 151 CPC for closure of the EP itself. However, if the petitioner has any objections with regard to the maintainability of the EP itself, he can file a counter therein, raising all such objections, and contest the same. In that view of the matter, I do no find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition warranting interference of this Court under Section 115 of the CPC and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. It is made clear that the petitioner is at liberty to raise all his objections in the EP itself. _________________ R.Subhash Reddy, J Date: 13th August, 2010 lur