IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3676 of 2005 Between: Nizampatnam Basavaiah ..... PETITIONER AND Maraka Venkateswarlu .....RESPONDENT The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3676 of 2005 ORDER: Petitioner/decree holder states that he had obtained decree against respondent/judgment debtor to recover a sum of Rs.86,000/- and that the decree was put into execution in EP.221/2000. The respondent/decree holder contends that he is an agriculturist and he has one house along with a cattle shed on an extent about 0.08 cents of land. That defence was accepted by the Executing Court, and it was held that under Sec.60(1)(c) of Civil Procedure Code, the said properties of the judgment debtor were exempt from attachment of the sale. In view of the finding that the respondent/judgment debtor is an agriculturist, the said EP was dismissed and the attachment was raised. The said order had become final. But, subsequently, the petitioner/decree holder filed the present EP.93/2001 making self- same allegations that the judgment debtor is earning substantial amount from out of the properties and that was sought to be established by the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, and the respondent/judgment debtor opposed the execution once again on the main ground that the findings in EP.221/2000 dated 13.03.2009 were already operating in his favour. Accepting the said defence, the Executing Court had dismissed the E.P, hence, this revision by the decree holder. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends, based on judgment in Venkanna v. Firm C.Moolchan[1] that decree holder can resort to and proceed with simultaneous execution petitions against different judgment debtors in execution of his decree for the same amount. He also contends that respondent/judgment debtor is no more an agriculturist and as he is having 0.05 cents of own land and 0.03 cents of occupied Government land in his possession, and apart from a house, he is having sufficient means to pay the decreetal amount. Respondent’s counsel was not present even on the earlier dates of hearing or even today. I am unable to find any subsequent event crucial to take a different view than taken by the Executing Court while dismissing E.P.221/2000 dated 13.03.2009. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to show any subsequent event, which can be taken into consideration for taking a different view on the financial capacity of the respondent/judgment debtor. In that view of the matter, I am unable to see any error of jurisdiction in the impugned order of the Court below. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner has apparently no application, as this is not a case where judgment debtor is seeking execution against different judgment debtors for the same amount. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, devoid of any merit, and the same is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dated: 02.09.2011 Dsr [1] AIR 1961 AP 63