K. BHARATHI Vs. C VINAYAK REDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C., aggrieved by the order, dated 07.02.2019 passed in E.A.No.317 of 2018 in E.P.No.984 of 2016 on the file of the II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, whereby, the learned Judge allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent/decree holder to correct the mistake occurred due to oversight in the orders, dated 10.10.2018, passed in E.P.No.984 of 2016, by incorporating Flat No.406 instead of Flat No.311 in schedule-B property belonging to the petitioner/J.Dr.No.4 (K.Bharathi Devi) and accordingly made the attachment orders of the said two flats absolute and also to release the attachment order in respect of Flat No.311.

(2.) The facts, in succinct, are as under:

(3.) The 1st respondent/decree holder filed O.S.No.24 of 2007 for recovery of an amount of Rs.15,31,500/- with interest at 24% per annum from the defendants and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 01.11.2014 and thereafter, the 1st respondent/decree holder filed E.P.No.984 of 2016 under Order XXI Rule 54 of C.P.C. seeking attachment of E.P. Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties belonging to J.Dr.Nos.4 and 5 for recovery of the E.P. amount of Rs.25,14,570/-. By an order, dated 10.10.2018, the trial Court allowed the said E.P. in part and the attachment order against flat Nos.401 and 402 in Schedule 'A' property and flat No.311 in Schedule 'B' property was made absolute and that the attachment order made against the remaining flats in Schedule 'A' and 'B' properties was raised. Thereafter, the 1st respondent/decree holder filed E.A.No.317 of 2018 seeking to correct the mistake occurred due to oversight in the orders, dated 10.10.2018, passed in E.P.No.984 of 2016 by incorporating Flat No.406 instead of Flat No.311 in schedule-B property belonging to the petitioner/J.Dr.No.4 (K.Bharathi Devi) and accordingly to make attachment orders of the said two flats absolute and also to release the attachment order in respect of Flat No.311. The contents of the affidavit filed in support of the said E.A., would show that after attachment of the property and at the time of the arguments in the E.P., the trial Court directed the 1st respondent/decree holder to restrict his claim to only two flats each in Schedule 'A' and 'B' property so that proclamation of sale can be issued and accordingly, the 1st respondent/decree holder filed a memo, dated 24.04.2018, praying the Court to issue proclamation of sale in respect of two flats i.e. flat Nos.401 and 402 in Schedule 'A' property belonging to J.Dr.No.5 and flat Nos.406 and 503 in Schedule 'B' property belonging to the petitioner/J.Dr.No.4, but the Court below allowed E.P. in part and attachment with regard to flat Nos.401 and 402 in schedule 'A' property and flat No.311 in Schedule 'B' property was made absolute. It was further stated in the affidavit that, in fact, as per the memo the 1st respondent/decree holder claimed attachment of Flat Nos.406 and 503 in Schedule 'B'. Since the memo filed by the 1st respondent/decree holder was misplaced in the section, the Court below, by oversight, made absolute the attachment order of Flat No.311 instead of Flat Nos.406 and 503. As the said Flat No.311 in 'B' schedule property has already been alienated by J.Dr.No.4 on 26.05.2016 to third parties and is no longer available for attachment, the 1st respondent/decree holder filed E.A.No.317 of 2018 praying the Court to correct the mistake occurred while passing the order in E.P. Since the 1st respondent/D.Hr restricts his claim to Flat Nos.406 and 503 in 'B' schedule to realise the E.P. amount, the Court below allowed the said petition by order dated 07.02.2019.