E SUBBA REDDY Vs. G DHANANJAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the point involved and the parties in these two revision petitions are one and the same, they are taken up together for disposal by this common order.

(2.) A short but interesting point that falls for consideration in these revision petitions is as to whether a decree holder can maintain a petition under Section 73 C.P.C. in an Execution Petition to which the balance sale proceeds of the judgment-debtor in another Execution Petition are transferred?

(3.) Brief facts are that the 2nd respondent herein is the judgment-debtor against whom a decree was passed by the Senior Civil Judge, NizamabadinO.S.No. 168 of 2001 which was filed by some third party. Similarly, the 1st respondent herein instituted O.S.No.351 of 2001 and the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad, decreed the suit against the 2nd respondent herein on 3-7-2002. The suit in O.S.No.341 of 2001 instituted by the petitioner herein was also decreed against the 2nd respondent i.e. the judgment-debtor on 14-11 -2001. It appears that the decree holder in O.S.No.168 of 2001 instituted E.P.No.67 of 2002 and got the properties belonging to the 2nd respondent-J. Dr sold in an auction and realized the sale proceeds. However, it appears, that an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Only) was left over and the 1st respondent herein, who is the decree holder in O.S.No.351 of 2001, filed E.P.No.18 of 2003underSection73C.P.C.seekingtransfer of the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- from E.P.No.67 of 2002 from the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Nizamabad to the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad and that petition was ordered. At a stage when the 1st respondent was about to realize the amount, the petitioner, who is the decree holder in O.S.No.341 of 2001, came forward and filed two applications i.e. E.A.No.188 of 2006 and E.A.No.189 of 2006 purported to have been filed under Section 73 C.P.C. seeking to stay the disbursement of amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in E.P.No.18 of 2003 to the 1st respondent herein and rateable distribution of the said amount respectively. Both the reliefs sought for were negatived by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred these Civil Revision Petitions.