L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The 1st appellant filed the Suit in O.S. No. 62 of 1980 in the Court of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the 2nd respondent for recovery of Rs.38,000/-. The Suit was decreed on 30.11.1981. By obtaining of precept, the 1st appellant filed E.P. No.5 of 1987 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Siddipet for recovery of a sum of Rs. 53,067-50 ps. The E.P. Schedule property situated at Mulugu was attached on 26.4.1988. The 1st respondent filed a claim petition, being E.A. No.20 of 1988 under Rule 58 of Order 21 of C.P.C. in E.P. No.5 of 1987. He pleaded that the E.P. schedule property was purchased by him on 15.9.1986 under Ex.A1 and that the attachment of the said property is untenable. The E.A. was opposed by the appellants. The Executing Court dismissed the E.A. through order dated 25.8.1992. Aggrieved by that, the 1st respondent filed A.S.No.1959 of 1992 before this Court. A learned Single Judge of this Court allowed the said appeal through judgment dated 24.9.2001. Then, this Letters Patent Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Sri G. Krsihna Murthy, learned counsel for the appellants submits that one M/s. J.B. Bodo & Company filed O.S.No.25 of 1979 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Sangareddy District against the 2nd respondent for recovery of amount and for execution of the decree dated 24.6.1980, passed in the suit, the company filed E.P.No.5 of 1985. Learned counsel submits that the very property, which is the subject matter of the present proceeding in E.P. No.5 of 1985 was attached and that a notification was also published intimating that the sale of the property would take place on 17.9.1986. He contends that the alleged purchase of the land through Ex.A1 by the 1st respondent during the subsistence of attachment in the 1st suit is illegal and without any legal consequence. He submits that the attachment obtained in E.P.No.5 of 1985 in O.S.No.25 of 1979 would no doubt be subject to the attachment under earlier execution proceedings initiated by M/s. J.B. Bodo & Company, but, the purchase of the land by the 1st respondent would not in any way affect the rights of his client to proceed with the E.P.

Sri S.Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that though the property was under attachment in E.P.No.5 of 1985 in O.S.No.25 of 1979, when the 1st respondent purchased the land, the E.P. stood terminated with the payment of the amount and thereby the attachment also ceased. He contends that the only person who could have complained of the purchase of the property during the subsistence of attachment would have been M/s. J.B. Bodo & Company and the appellants, who filed E.P. two years subsequent to the termination of attachment in the 1st suit, have no basis or locus standi to challenge the purchase made by the 1st respondent. He submits that the Executing Court, in the instant case, dismissed the E.A. not being able to maintain a distinction between the attachment made in two separate E.Ps. He contends that the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.

The suit filed by the 1st appellant in the Court of the I Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad was decreed on 30.11.1981. However, he initiated the execution proceedings only in the year 1987. The order of attachment was obtained on 26.4.1988. On coming to know that the property was attached, the 1st respondent filed E.A.No.20 of 1988 under Rule 58 of Order 21 of C.P.C. Since the E.A. filed under that provision is required to be dealt with as an independent Suit, the Executing Court framed a point, namely, ‘whether the properties are not liable for attachment and the claim of the 1st respondent be allowed’.

The 1st respondent deposed as P.W.1 and he filed Ex.A1, Certified copy of the sale deed dated 15.9.1986. He has also filed pahanies for the years 1986 to 1989, marked as Exs.A2 to A4. On behalf of the appellants, R.W.1 was