BOLLAPALLI VENKAT RAO Vs. CHATURVEDULA SUBBAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil Revision petition is referred for decision of a Division Bench by our learned brother Rama Rao, J. The question referred is whether a second Appeal lies to this Court against the appellate order passed on an application under O. 21 R. 58 C.P.C

(2.) The petitioner herein filed an application under O. 21 r. 58 C.P.C before the subordinate judge Narasaraopet, to raise the attachment in respect of petition schedule properties challenging the attachment effected at the instance of the 1st respondent-decree- holder who had obtained a decree against the 2nd respondent-Judgment-debtor. The contention of the petitioner is that the execution proceedings in respect of the petition schedule properties are illegal as the property belongs to him and not to the judgment-debtor. At present was are not concerned with the merits of the case and is enough if we notice that the object of the petitioner was overruled by the executing Court. A civil Miscellaneous appeal was filed against the said order of the executing Court dated 18/07/1979 on the file of the I additional Judge Guntur and the Appellate Court in its judgment dated 6-12-1979 confirmed the order of the executing Court. Against the said judgment the petitioner herein filed the present Civil revision petition and the respondent took a preliminary objection stating that under O. 21 R. 58 (4) C.P.C as amended by Act 104 of 1976 no civil revision petition lies but an appeal lies to this Court.

(3.) It may be stated at the outset that the learned counsel for the revision-petitioner has filed in the first instance a second appeal but when the office took an objection he converted the same into a civil revision petition. At the time of the final hearing as the matter relates to procedure of general importance the learned Judge referred the matter to a Division bench. That is how it has come before us.