THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.M.S.A.No.64 of 2009 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 10.8.2009 passed in A.S.No.28 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, East Godavari, at Rajahmundry whereby and whereunder the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the appeal confirming the order dated 22.12.2006 passed in E.A. 192 of 2003 in E.P.No.52 of 2003 in O.S.No.76 of 1998 on the file of court of Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram. 2. The background of facts in a nutshell leading to filing of this civil miscellaneous second appeal by Parvathini Ganga Raju are that Godithi Srilatha filed a suit against Subba Rao for recovery of money. She also got the properties of Subba Rao attached for realization of the suit amount. The suit ended in decree. Godithi Srilatha filed E.P.No.52 of 2003 for sale of the attached properties for realization of the decretal amount. The appellant filed E.A.No.192 of 2003 under Order 21 Rule 58 and Order 38 Rule 8 of CPC to raise the attachment dated 10.10.1998. According to him, he got Ac.2-09 cents of land in R.S.No.387/1 to his share in division of the family properties. The attached property forms part and parcel of Ac.2-09 cents that fell to his share. The decree holder filed counter resisting the application. It is stated in the counter that the appellant filed I.A.No.433 of 1999 under Order 38 Rule 8 of CPC for raising attachment. The said claim petition ended in dismissal making attachment absolute. He did not choose to challenge the order passed in I.A.No.433 of 1999 and thereby the present claim application is barred by principles of res-judicata. The appellant-claimant examined three witnesses and marked six documents to substantiate his claim over the property. 3. On behalf of the decree holder, one witness was examined as RW.1. The executing court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the appellant claimant failed to prove his possession over the land which is subject matter of attachment. A further finding has been recorded that the subsequent application filed by the appellant-claimant is barred by principles of res-judicata. With the above findings, the executing court dismissed the claim application and the order of dismissal came to be confirmed by the lower appellate court in Appeal No.28 of 2007. Assailing the judgment passed in A.S.No.28 of 2007, the claimant filed this civil miscellaneous second appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material brought on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court on the validity of the agreement of sale cannot be sustained since the appellant filed the suit basing on the said agreement of sale and obtained a decree. A further submission has been made that the trial court and the lower appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence brought on record in right perspective and thereby erred in dismissing the claim application filed by the appellant. 6. Indisputably, the property of Subba Rao came to be attached pending the suit. The appellant herein filed I.A.No.433 of 1999 for raising the attachment. The said application ended in dismissal. The appellant did not chose to challenge the said order by filing any appeal. Once the application filed by him to raise the attachment ended in dismissal and dismissal order reached finality, it is impermissible for him to file application once again in the execution proceedings seeking self-same relief. The principles of res-judicata are applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The trial court and the lower appellate court have considered the matter brought on record in right perspective and recorded a finding that the agreement of sale pressed into service by the appellant does not invalidate the attachment effected in the suit. There is no substantial question of law involved in this civil miscellaneous second appeal warranting admission. 7. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous second appeal is dismissed at admission stage. No order as to costs. ________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY,J 19.11.2009 Stp S