THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1713 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 CPC by Judgment Debtor No.3 in O.S.No.1329 of 2001 on the file of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the order, dated 12.02.2009 passed in E.P.No.951 of 2007. Petitioner is Judgment Debtor No.3 in O.S.No.1329 of 2001. The first respondent obtained money decree, dated 07.08.2002 against respondents 2 and 3 and the petitioner herein. For execution of the decree passed in the said suit, E.P.No.951 of 2007 was filed by the first respondent for attachment of the schedule mentioned immovable property of the petitioner for realization of decretal amount of Rs.69,140/-. As the E.P. was filed after two years of the decree in O.S.No.1329 of 2001, notice was issued to the petitioner. The E.P. proceedings were contested by the petitioner mainly on the ground that he resigned as a Director of the second respondent company, which in turn, owns the property as such without proceeding against it, E.P. cannot be proceeded against him. The Court below by the impugned order allowed the E.P. and ordered for attachment of immovable property of the petitioner herein in exercise of power under Order XXI Rule 54 CPC. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on an earlier occasion, steps were taken to execute the decree against the second respondent company and some properties of it were attached, as such, no steps can be taken against the petitioner for attachment of his properties. The said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted for the reason that the petitioner is judgment debtor No.3 in O.S.No.1329 of 2001. As much as the said decree has become final, it is for the decree holder to attach the properties of the petitioner or not, but merely because some other properties of the second respondent are available, the same does not prevent the decree holder to proceed against the petitioner. As much as the liability is joint and several and the petitioner is individually judgment debtor No.3 in the above-mentioned suit, it is always open for the decree holder to proceed against the immovable properties of the petitioner for execution of the decree. In that view of the matter, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Court below to interfere with the same under Section 115 CPC. The civil revision petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J 16th JUNE, 2010. kvni