IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1456 of 2011 BETWEEN Kotha Narasimha Rao. ... PETITIONER AND Sri Karnati Vasu. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. V. RAVI KIRAN RAO Counsel for the Respondent: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India requesting intervention of this Court, as neither the execution petition filed by the petitioner together with interlocutory applications is being registered nor any hearing is being given to the petitioner. Since that is the only grievance, the revision petition is being disposed of at the admission stage without the necessity of giving notice to the respondent. 2. It is stated that the petitioner is the decree holder in O.S.No.23 of 2008 and has filed EP with an out of order application on 11.04.2011. Petitioner also moved three separate applications seeking to dispense with the show cause notice under Order 21 Rule 22(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; another application under Order 21 Rule 46 CPC seeking a garnishee order and another application under Order 21 Rule 54 CPC to attach the EP schedule property. Petitioner states that he has filed third party affidavits in support of his allegation that the respondent is attempting to defeat the recovery of the decretal amount by alienating the properties and therefore, there is imminent urgency. The office of the executing Court raised several office objections, which were complied with but ultimately no hearing of the EP has taken place. It is stated that now the said EP along with the interlocutory applications is posted to 21.04.2011. 3. As the petitioner has filed the execution petition on 11.04.2011 with an out of order application, there is apparent urgency in taking up the EP/EA’s filed therein. The office objections of the Registry of the executing Court are said to have been complied with and as such, there is no reason as to why hearing in the said EP/EA’s cannot take place urgently. Since the petitioner is apprehending irreparable loss, if the respondent attempts to defeat the decree by means of alienation or otherwise of the EP schedule property, the urgency expressed by the petitioner is necessary to be taken note of by the executing Court. 4. In the circumstances, the executing Court is directed to take up the EP and the EA’s together, if the EP is in order and pass appropriate orders therein in accordance with law on or before 21.04.2011 when the EP stands posted before the executing Court. The petitioner shall have the liberty to seek advancement of the EP to a date even earlier to 21.04.2011, if the urgency is so imminent. The civil revision petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J April 15, 2011 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 16.04.2011 (B/o) DSK