THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 7 of 2011. ORDER: This fundamentally misconceived revision is directed against an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka rejecting the I.A.No. 319 of 2010 in O.S.No. 47 of 2007. The 1st respondent herein filed the suit for recovery of arrears of rent due from the revision petitioners and other respondents in respect of suit schedule premises. The plaintiffs therein obtained an attachment before judgement of the suit schedule premises. The petitioners were also defendants in O.S.No. 1578 of 2006 in a Court at Hyderabad filed by third parties to the present proceedings. O.S.No. 1578 of 2006 was decreed and for recovery of the decreetal amount, the plaintiffs therein got the decree transmitted to the Court below by way of E.P.No. 153 of 2007 and got attached the schedule property, which was already under attachment in O.S.No. 47 of 2007. The revision petitioners as judgement debtors satisfied the decreetal liability in E.P.No. 153 of 2007 and full satisfaction was also said to have been recorded in the said execution petition. According to Sri.Simhadri, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, they filed an application for return of the keys whereby the suit schedule premises was locked pursuant to the orders of attachment in O.S.No. 1578 of 2006 relating to E.P.No. 153 of 2007. However by an order dt. 25.3.2008 in E.P.No. 153 of 2007, the Court declined to release the stocks as they are subject to attachment in O.S.No. 47 of 2007. The revision petitioners filed I.A.No. 319 of 2010 for return of the keys, pertaining to the order of attachment in O.S.No. 1576 of 2006 and E.P.No. 153 of 2007, in O.S.No. 47 of 2007. This application was rightly dismissed by the order under revision. The court below observed that since the keys were seized in E.P.No. 153 of 2007 and since the said E.P. was closed, an application for return of the keys, in O.S.No. 47 of 2007 is not maintainable and the petitioners have to pursue remedies in E.P.No. 153 of 2007. Sri.Simhadri would strenuously contend that since the liability qua the claim of the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 47 of 2007 is only to the tune of Rs. 4.00 lakhs and the value of the stocks is more than 11.00 lakhs, the court below ought to have ordered return of the keys after retaining the stock to the extent of Rs. 4.00 lakhs in value. This contention is stated to be rejected. As the order of attachment in O.S.No. 47 of 2007 is operative and has not been challenged as yet, under the rubric of I.A.No. 319 of 2010, the petitioners cannot gainfully persuade the court below to vary the order of attachment by adjudicating the liability of the revision petitioners in O.S.No. 47 of 2007 being of a value lower than the value of the stocks attached. The court below rightly concluded itself that I.A.No. 319 of 2010 is in the context of pleadings and the setting, misconceived. This court sees no reason to fault the order of the court below. The revision is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 15.07.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 7 of 2011. ORDER: Dt. 15.7.2011.