THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.M.P.No. 429 of 2010 And C.R.P.No.5600 of 2011 Dated. 09-12-2011 Between: Malla Ganesh …Petitioner Vs. Sreedharala Satyanarayana and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.M.P.No. 429 of 2010 And C.R.P.No.5600 of 2011 Dated: 09-12-2011 ORAL ORDER: The application – C.R.P.M.P.No. 429 of 2010 is filed seeking condonation of delay of 277 days in filing the revision against the order dated 20-10-2008 in E.P.No. 60 of 2006 in O.S.No. 650 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Anakapally. On 11-02-2010 notice on the application seeking condonation of delay was ordered and the learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to take out personal notice on the respondents and file proof of service, within four weeks. Proof of service of notice on respondents directed as above is however not yet filed. On consideration of the substantive revision on merits, it is seen that the revision itself is misconceived. The revision petitioner filed E.P.No. 60 of 2006 seeking sale of schedule property by auction to realize the decretal amount, under Order XXI Rules 64 to 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The decree in O.S.No. 650 of 2004 was obtained against the respondents- judgment debtors on 24-08-2005 for Rs.1,00,000-00 with costs and subsequent interest. In the execution petition, the judgment debtors filed a counter affidavit inter alia asserting that the first judgment debtor filed I.P.No. 7 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Anakapalli, and the same is pending enquiry and the decree holder was shown as 44th respondent in the said I.P. and contesting the petition. It was further contended that the execution petition was filed suppressing the pendency of the I.P. In the circumstances, the Court below, by the order impugned, held that since I.P.No. 7 of 2003, filed by the first judgment debtor is still pending, whereat the decree holder was shown as 44th respondent, and the execution petition schedule property forms part of the I.P. schedule property, the execution petition is closed, duly observing that the decree holder would be at liberty to file an execution petition afresh or obtain restoration of the present execution petition after disposal of I.P.No. 7 of 2003. In the circumstances of the case and in view of the reasons recorded in the impugned order by the Court below, there appears no error in the exercise of jurisdiction, warranting revisional interference. In the circumstances and in view of the fact that notice was permitted to be served on the respondents on 11-02-2010 in C.R.P.M.P.No. 429 of 2010 but has not been served, I consider it appropriate to dismiss the application – C.R.P.M.P.No. 429 of 2010. Consequently the revision petition also stands dismissed. Accordingly, the C.R.P.M.P.No. 429 of 2010 stands dismissed so also the revision. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 09-12-2011 Bnr/Pvks/*