IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1351 of 2008 BETWEEN Karanam Venkata Krishna Rao and two others. ... PETITIONERS AND Dodda Adilaxmi and eight others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners: MR. S.R. SANKU Counsel for the Respondents: MR. C. SUBBA REDDY MR. M.S.R. SUBRAHMANYAM – R8 The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is preferred at the instance of defendants 8 to 10, who are judgment debtors in E.P.No.26 of 2004 in I.A.No.495 of 1999 in O.S.No.34 of 1978. Petitioners had filed E.A.No.135 of 2007 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to declare the decree in O.S.No.34 of 1978 and I.A.No.495 of 1999 passed in favour of the first respondent/decree holder as inexecutable. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their EA, the petitioners preferred the present revision. 2. The contentions of the petitioners were examined by the executing Court by a detailed order and each of the contentions were rejected by holding that the discharge, satisfaction and executability of the decree as contemplated under Section 47 CPC was not established by the petitioners. The executing Court has dealt with long chequered history of the case wherein ultimately the properties of the judgment debtors were sold through orders of the Court. The Court below also made comments against the petitioners by being of the opinion that the petitioners are delaying the fruits of the decree to reach the decree holder. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, who has taken the Court through the history of the litigation and contends primarily that the calculation of the amounts recovered by the decree holder would show that he had recovered much more than what is granted to him under the decree and therefore, seeks to sustain the present application being E.A.No.135 of 2007. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submits that on account of heavy rains, the Court auction held on 04.10.2007 was very heavily affected and the Court below should have taken that factor into consideration, as the sale through public auction was almost impossible on account of heavy rains. 4. I have considered the submissions in the light of the impugned order of the Court below, which has dealt with and rejected all the contentions raised by the petitioners by elaborate reasons. The correctness or validity of the auction etc. are not matters, which fall within Section 47 CPC. The other aspects urged by the petitioners do not show that the decree as such is rendered inexecutable, as alleged by the petitioners. The Court below, therefore, was right in rejecting the petitioner’s application filed under Section 47 CPC. I am, therefore, unable to find any infirmity warranting interference with the impugned order. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the excess amount is recovered by the decree holder, they may be granted opportunity to take appropriate steps in that regard. 6. If the contentions of the petitioners are justified, it is for them to take appropriate steps as permissible under law, but those allegations cannot be adjudicated within the scope of Section 47 CPC. The civil revision petition, therefore, has no merits and accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 23, 2011 DSK