THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5454 OF 2002 DATED:21.04.2011 Between: P.Suryanarayana & 3 others. .... PETITIONERS And G.Narasimhulu & 3 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 20.08.2002, in E.A.No.5 of 2002 in O.E.P.No.134 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Madanapalle filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXI Rule 89 CPC for raising the attachment in respect of the petition schedule property and to record full satisfaction in E.P.No.134 of 1999, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. Perused the record. 3. 1st respondent herein obtained decree against the respondents 2 and 3 in O.S.No.196 of 1987 and for realization of the decree filed E.P.No.134 of 1999 and brought the property of the judgment-debtors to sale. 4th respondent herein is the auction purchaser. Petitioners herein, who are the third party claimants, filed E.A.No.504 of 2002 for raising attachment on the ground that they are having agreement of sale executed by the judgment-debtors in their favour in respect of the schedule property. The said petition was dismissed on 20.08.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. 4. While admitting the Civil Revision Petition, this Court by order, dated 03.12.2002 in C.M.P.No.22644 of 2002 granted interim stay subject to the condition that the petitioners shall deposit the E.P.amount as well as the poundage payable to the auction purchasers. It is stated that the said interim order has been complied with. Petitioners are said to have filed O.S.No.42 of 1990 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle against the judgment- debtors herein for specific performance of agreement of sale and admittedly the said suit was dismissed after contest on 07.08.2008 and the said judgment has become final. Inasmuch as the claim of the petitioners, based on the agreement of sale, was negatived by the Court in O.S.No.42 of 1990, the present claim application filed by the petitioners in E.A.No.5 of 2002 is unsustainable. The dismissal of the said application by the Execution Court does not therefore call for any interference. Petitioners are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court on 03.12.2002 in accordance with law. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 21st April, 2011. Tsy