THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5132 OF 2009 DATED: 01-02- 2011. Between M.Venkata Swamy … Petitioners-J.Dr.No.1 And P.Narayana and four others …Respondents-D.Hrs and J.Dr.No.2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5132 OF 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order, dated 31-07-2009, in E.P.No.18 of 2006 in O.S.No.18 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda, whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Order XXI Rules, 54,64 and 66 CPC for realizing the E.P. amount by sale of the schedule property was allowed. 2. The factual matrix is not in dispute. One of the D.Hrs filed Execution Petition for sale of the E.P. schedule property in execution of the decree. It seems all the D.Hrs. have not made parties. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that permission of the Court is required under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 of Order XXI CPC to protect the interest of the party and therefore, Execution Proceedings are not in accordance with law. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents contended that it is not mandatory to obtain prior permission of the Court in execution of the decree, that even the property is sold, the D.Hr who filed the execution petition would not get all the sale proceeds and they would get the extent of the amount under the decree and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned order. 5. There is no need to obtain leave of the Court as one of the D.Hrs is executing the decree. As per the decree, the D.Hr. would get the sale proceeds equivalent to the share he is entitled to in case ultimately the property is sold in the public auction. Therefore the said provision is not mandatory one and any one of the D.Hr can execute the decree. Hence, the order does not suffer from any infirmities calling interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. -------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 01-02-2011 Hsd