THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2421 of 2011 Dated 20th August, 2011 Between: M/s.Madina Enterprises …Petitioner And M/s.Garudadri Enterprises …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri A.Ravinder Counsel for respondent: --- The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 20.06.2011, in I.A.No.775 of 2010, in O.S.No.198 of 2010, on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda. The petitioner is the defendant in the above-mentioned suit filed by the respondent for recovery of certain amounts. Pending the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.775 of 2010 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘the Code’) for attachment of the petitioner’s immovable property. The petitioner filed a counter affidavit resisting the said application. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, by his order, dated 20.06.2011, allowed the application filed by the respondent directing attachment of the petitioner’s immovable property. This order is questioned by the petitioner in this civil revision petition. At the hearing, Sri A.Ravinder, learned counsel for the petitioner, while fairly conceding that against the order under revision, the petitioner has a right of appeal under Order XLIII of the Code to the District Court, he submitted that since the property which is attached is situated outside the jurisdiction of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Miryalaguda, the petitioner has invoked the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. A perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in the I.A., shows that he has not raised this contention relating to the jurisdiction of the learned Senior Civil Judge. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to raise such a contention for the first time in this revision. Even if the petitioner has objection to the jurisdiction of the learned Senior Civil Judge, the same can be raised by the petitioner along with the merits before the appellate Court while challenging the order under revision. As the petitioner is left with the efficacious remedy of an appeal to the District Court, I am not inclined to entertain this civil revision petition. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal. The Registry shall return to the learned counsel for the petitioner the certified copies on application being filed. As a sequel to dismissal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.3419 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 20th August, 2011 VGB