MUVVALA RAMACHANDRA RAO Vs. KURICHETI RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil miscellaneous second appeal arises out of the judgment passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tenali in AS No.25 of 1997 confirming the order passed by the Principal District Munsif, Tenali in EA No.80 of 1997 in EP 46 of 1997, dated 26-3-1997, whereby the application of the appellants under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been dismissed.

(2.) It is no longer in dispute before me that the first respondent had filed a suit in OS No.255 of 1995 against the second respondent for money decree and the disputed property had been attached before Judgment on 4-8-1995. The first respondent had sent a notice to the appellants after the suit has been decreed intimating about the order of attachment as also of the passing of the money decree. Thereafter, the appellants had filed a suit on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tenali, in OS 100 of 1995 for specific performance of the contract dated 14-11-1994 against both the respondents and the suit is pending. The first respondent had filed an application for execution in EP 46 of 1996 and the property already attached had been put to sale. Thereafter, the appellants filed EA 80 of 1997 under Order 21 Rule 58 for releasing the disputed property from attachment on the strength of the agreement of sale dated 14-11-1994 alleging that the second respondent had agreed to self the suit property for a sum of Rs.1,60,000.00and had received an amount of Rs.50,000.00 and thereafter Rs.70,000.00 total Rs.1,20,000.00 and had handed over the possession of the disputed property to them and the balance amount of consideration of Rs.40,000.00 remains to be paid at the time of execution and registration of the sale deed. Therefore, the disputed property should be released from the attachment. The first respondent through his counter has denied the claim of the appellants. He has alleged that the alleged contract of sale is bogus and has been brought into existence to defeat and delay the realisation of the decretal amount. He has denied that the appellants were in possession of the disputed property. The appellants had knowledge about the attachment before judgment of the disputed property before filing the suit and, therefore, they were estopped from filing objection under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is also alleged that this objection has been filed only to delay the execution proceedings and, therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) The second respondent did not make any appearance in spite of notice and remained absent and, therefore, was set ex parte.