IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.4887 of 2010 Between: The Depot Manager, Miryalaguda Depot, APSRTC, Nalgonda District .. Petitioner AND Mudumba Rama Krishna Chary and 20 others .. Respondents COMMON ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the execution being levied against the properties of the revision petitioner in E.P.No.109 of 2008 in O.P.No.25 of 1988 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalaguda in execution of the award and the decree in O.P.No.25 of 1988. The decree holders in O.P.No.25 of 1988 filed E.P.No.109 of 2008 against the Revenue Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer and the APSRTC, Nalgonda, with the APSRTC being added by the Executing Court as per the order dated 15-6-2009 for recovery of Rs.26,02,149/- claimed to be due as on 21-6-2010 under the decree. The property against which the decree holder sought to proceed against for recovery of the said amount is the property of the revision petitioner i.e. 10 Luxury buses. The decree holder based his claim on the award and decree as ordered in A.S.No.1927 of 1992 and as further clarified about the entitlement of the decree holder to the statutory benefits in C.R.P.No.1053 of 2007. The revision petitioner contends herein that though the amount claimed in execution is deposited to the credit of the matter before Executing Court in pursuance of the orders of attachment, the calculation by the decree holder was not correct and as per its own calculations claimed before on the basis of the statutory provisions as interpreted by the binding precedents, no amount is due. It is also the claim of the revision petitioner that before ordering attachment for the E.P. amount, no opportunity of hearing was given to it. In C.R.P.M.P.No.6992 of 2010, it was averred on behalf of the decree holders that the revision petitioner filed a counter after being impleaded on service of notice in the execution petition ultimately on 7-9-2009 and an attachment order was passed by the Executing Court after hearing the counsel for the decree holders on 27-7-2010. The decree holders also reiterated elaborately their right to claim the E.P. amount against both the respondents in the execution petition. The impugned order dated 27-7-2010 reads that both the respondents viz., Revenue Divisional Officer and APSRTC were called absent and that the decree holder’s counsel was heard and that the calculation memo was perused and that the respondents were not paying the amount though A.S.No.1927 of 1992 was decided on 31-03-1999, and therefore, the counter was overruled directing attachment of the properties. None of the contentions raised by the respondents in their separate counters have been adverted to in the impugned order and no finding on merits was given by the Executing Court on the conflicting contentions of the parties about the amount due under the decree. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner desires a decision on merits on the contentions raised by him about the quantum of amount due before any further steps are ordered, which request is but reasonable. It is true that because of the interim stay of disbursement of the amount deposited by the revision petitioner granted in CRPM.P.No.6500 of 2010, the decree holders are deprived of realizing the amount claimed by them in the execution petition as due, but it is equally important that there should be a decision on merits on what is lawfully due to the decree holders under the decree in question before such disbursement is made. While the impugned order dated 27-07- 2010 cannot by any means of construction be considered to be a judicial order on merits in the absence of adverting to the rival contentions or deciding the merits of the same, the interest of the decree holders can be safeguarded by directing such determination on merits within a reasonable time to be fixed by the court herein. The order dated 27-07-2010 has to be interfered with accordingly in this revision, but the setting aside of the said order directing issuance of attachment of movables and furnitures of respondents 1 and 2 shall not have any adverse impact on the deposit already made by the revision petitioner as the said amount shall continue to be available to the successful party in the execution petition to be disturbed in tune with the determination of the matter on merits. Accordingly, the order dated 27-7-2010 in E.P.No.109 of 2008 in O.P.No.25 of 1988 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Miryalaguda, is set aside and the said Court shall determine the execution petition on merits with reference to the claim of the decree holders and the objections of respondents 1 and 2 viz., Revenue Divisional Officer and APSRTC after giving every reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties of their respective contentions within two weeks from the date of communication of the orders herein and the entitlement of the decree holders or the revision petitioner herein to the amount in deposit shall be subject to such orders on merits by the executing Court. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-11-2010 Ksn