THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4406 OF 2010 Dated: 25.01.2011 Between: Y.S.S.R.A. Sharma ..... Petitioner AND V. Bhaskar & Anr. .....Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. Nageswara Rao CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4406 OF 2010 ORDER Judgment Debtor No.1 in E.P. No. 130 of 2010 in O.S. No. 86 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kothagudem is the revision petitioner. The E.P. was filed for attachment of the salary of the revision petitioner, who is J.D.R. No.1. A decree was obtained for recovery of the money against J.D.R Nos.1 and 2 and it has become final. The lower Court ordered attachment of the salary of the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner filed a counter contending that some amounts were collected from J.D.R. No.2 by filing E.P. Nos. 72 of 2007 and 176 of 2008. The present case is filed for wrongful gain and the amount has already been collected from J.D.R. No.2, therefore, the petition is not maintainable. The lower Court did not accept the contention of the revision petitioner and passed the order of attachment. Aggrieved by the said order, the present revision is filed. Notice has been ordered to R.1, but it was not returned and nobody appeared. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the movables of J.D.R. No.2 were pre-attached and also one E.P. was filed against J.D.R. No.2 and amounts were realised. J.D.R. No.2 reported to have died. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner, the present execution against the revision petitioner is not maintainable. According to him, if the movables are not proceeded with since J.D.R. No.2 has got every right to proceed against J.D.R. No.1, who is the principal borrower, loss will be incurred to the petitioner. As can be seen from the Order of the Court, the movable properties are not available. From the salary of the J.D.R. No.2, only a sum of Rs. 8,419/- was deducted and it was given credit to the decree-holder. The present revision petitioner could not produce any other material to show that the decree has been satisfied by J.D.R. No.2. If any such satisfaction is there, it would have been borne out by the record. But the revision petitioner could not establish the same. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the decree-holder has got right to proceed simultaneously against J.D.R. Nos. 1 and 2 and also can take separate modes of execution. The Judgment Debtors have no right to dictate to the decree-holder to proceed in a particular manner for the realisation of the amount. As the matter stands, J.D.R No. 2 is no more and no personal recovery can be effected against him. The liability of the revision petitioner to pay the decretal amount cannot be disputed merely because at a future time claim is likely to be made by the legal representatives of J.D.R. No.2 for the movables and the same is not a ground to defer the execution and deny the right of the decree-holder, if the decree is not satisfied and the liability of attachment is also not in dispute. If the petitioner or the legal representatives of J.D.R. No.2 are advised, they can file an application for release of the movables or seek for sale of the same towards appropriate decretal amount and if the movables are not available, the necessary action open under law can be taken. But it is not a ground to defer the execution against the revision petitioner. There are absolutely no merits in the revision. Accordingly, the revision is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 25.01.2011 tsk