P BANGARUTHALLI Vs. PIRATLA SURYANARAYANA AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner filed O. S. No. 51 of 1989 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, vizianagaram, against the second respondent, for recovery of certain amount. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, the petitioner filed e. P. No. 89 of 1998. Even during the pendency of the suit, an item of immovable property was got attached before judgment under Order 38 Rule 5 CPC. The same was brought to sale on 23. 04. 2003. At that stage, the first respondent filed e. A. No. 184 of 2003 under Section 73, read with Section 151 CPC. He pleaded that he filed O. S. Nos. 82 of 1993 and 213 of 1994 in the Court of Junior Civil Judge, vizianagaram, for recovery of Rs. 26,348/- and Rs. 50,467/-respectively, and that the said decrees have become final. It was alleged that the decrees were transmitted from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram to the Court of senior Civil Judge of that place and thereafter, E. P. No. 84 of 2002 was filed for execution thereof. The first respondent wanted rateable distribution of sale proceedings.

(2.) THE petitioner opposed the application stating that the application is not maintainable, on the ground that the decrees are of different Courts and that EP was not filed by the time the property was sold by the Executing Court by virtue of attachment. The trial Court allowed the I. A. through an order, dated 19. 08. 2003. The same is challenged in this civil revision petition.

(3.) SRI G. Venkateswar Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the application filed by the first respondent is not maintainable in law and that the order under revision is opposed to Section 73 CPC. He further submits that there was absolutely no basis or justification to the Court in directing rateable distribution of sale proceeds.