( 1 ) THIS revision is directed against the order dated 23-4-1991 passed by the I Addl. District Munsiff, Guntur in e. P. No. 258/85 in S. E. L. F. No. 4/1980-81.

( 2 ) THE facts leading for filing of this revision petition are as follows : the revision petitioner P. Pattabhiramaiah worked as Sarpanch of Visadala Gram panchayat from 1956 to 1964 and again from 1970 to 1981. One Guduru Lakshminarayana was Sarpanch of that Gram Panchayat from 1964 to 1970. An audit was effected with regard to the accounts of that Gram panchayat as per the Rules of the Gram panchayat Act, 1964 and that audit was completed on 28-10-1978. The Audit Officer based on audit report issued the Surcharge certificate. 4/80-81 on 4-4-1980 against the revision-petitioner for a sum of Rs. 7,937/- representing the loss caused to the funds of that Gram Panchayat. Ex. A-1 is the said surcharge Certificate, dated 4-4-1980. The revision-petitioner is alleged to have caused loss to the Gram Panchayat in a sum of rs. 7937/- towards the works like side drain works, removal of trees and j ungles from the road side as detailed in the Surcharge certificate during the period he worked as sarpanch and executive authority of the said gram Panchayat from 17-10-70 to 31-3-79. In execution of that Surcharge Certificate, e. P. No. 37/84 was filed and it was dismissed on 20-2-1985. Again, E. P. 258/85 has been filed by the Extension Officer of Nallapadu panchayat Samithi and sought for attachment of the immovable property of the revision-petitioner-who is the judgment-debtor. On receipt of the notice in the execution petition, the revision-petitioner-judgment-debtor filed a counter resisting the execution petition. It is averred in the counter that the earlier e. P. 37/84 was dismissed on 20-2-85 and that the present execution petition is barred by the principles of res judicata, that the surcharge Certificate is not valid and not enforceable under law, that the Surcharge certificate issued three years after the audit is barred by time, that the decree-holder has not issued a notice at the time of issuing Surcharge certificate or filing of the execution petition and that the execution petition is not maintainable. During the enquiry, PWs. 1 and 2 were examined on behalf of the decree-holder and Exs. A-1 to A-3 were marked. The judgment-debtor got examined himself as RW-1 and Ex. B-1 was marked. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed before him, the learned district Murisif held that the Surcharge certificate issued by the Audit Officer, Local funds, Guntur can be executed against the judgment-debtor and consequently, overruling the objections raised by the judgment-debtor, ordered for further steps in the execution petition. Aggrieved of that order, the judgment-debtor has come up with this revision.

( 3 ) HEARD the learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner avid the respondent and perused the Lower Court records and the impugned order.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner contends that the Surcharge certificate which is being sought for execution, was issued on 4-4-1980 which is beyond the period of limitation of 3 years from the completion of the audit i. e. , 28-10-1976 and as such, it is barred by time. The learned Counsel for the revision-petitioner further contends that mandatory procedure was not followed while issuing the Surcharge Certificate and that no enquiry was held and no notice was a given to the revision-petitioner. It is further contended that the Gram Panchayat ought to have filed a suit against the revision-petitioner under section 150 of A. P. Gram Panchayat Act, 1950 for recovery of the Surcharge amount within the period of limitation and as no suit has been filed for the recovery of the surcharge amount, the present execution petition is not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent submits his arguments in support of the impugned order.

( 5 ) THE execution petition is filed for the r