ORDER :

I have heard both sides.

2. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner/Judgment-debtor (J.Dr.) under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code against the orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Addanki, in E.P.No.40 of 2014 in O.S.No.1007 of 2012 dated 10.02.2015, wherein and whereby the executing Court overruled the objection raised by the petitioner and ordered for attachment and sale of execution petition schedule property for realization of decretal amount by the respondent/Decree-holder (D.Hr.).

3. The case of the respondent/D.Hr. before executing Court is that he filed suit for recovery of money against the petitioner/J.Dr. on the file of the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, which suit decreed on 11.02.2013 for an amount of Rs.1,39,667/- with subsequent interest. The respondent/D.Hr. alleged that inspite of repeated demands, revision petitioner/J.Dr. not repaid the decretal amount and he is intentionally avoided to repay the same on one pretext or other and prays to attach and sale execution petition schedule property in Court auction by ordering proclamation under Order XXI Rule 64 and 66 CPC.

4. For which, the revision petitioner/J.Dr. filed counter before executing Court stating that himself and respondent are close friends and due to that he obtained hand loan of Rs.1,00,000/- from the respondent on 24.07.2009 and executed a promissory note. He alleged that at that time, respondent obtained his signatures in unfilled promissory note and also on Rs.100/- stamp paper and thereafter he called respondent at Kotak Mahendra Bank, Vijayawada and then he gave an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and cheque for Rs.24,468/- to respondent/D.Hr. He submits that after that he shifted his family to Vizag in the month of May 2011 for his business purpose and since then he has been staying at Vizag, but recently came to know that execution petition has been filed and on his enquiry, he came to know about respondent obtaining ex parte decree on 11.02.2013 by filing the suit on the file of the Court of learned III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada. The main contention of the revision petitioner/J.Dr. is that he indebted many amounts to respondent/D.Hr. and he is not in possession of execution petition schedule property, which is in possession of Valluri Sreeramulu and others, who is resident of Darsi village of Martur Mandal. He further submits that he is not in possession of execution petition schedule property since 15 years, but respondent/D.Hr. filed execution petition for wrongful gain. The revision petitioner himself has stated that he has not having any other property in Vijayawada except the schedule property and he also filed petition to set aside ex parte decree along with petition under Section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the petition.

He prays to dismiss the execution petition.

5. The learned executing Court after hearing both sides allowed the execution petition by overruling the objection raised by the revision petitioner/J.Dr.

6. Aggrieved by the orders passed by executing Court ordering for attachment and sale of E.P. schedule property, revision petitioner/J.Dr. has filed present revision petition stating that the order of the Court below is erroneous, contrary to law and weight of evidence. He submits that the executing Court ordered for attachment and sale of E.P. schedule property though he pleaded in his counter that he filed petition to set aside the ex parte decree, which is pending and he is now taking steps to proceed with enquiry in the petitions filed by him before the trial Court. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner mainly contended that petitioner is not in possession and enjoyment of E.P. schedule property since 15 years, due to that the said property cannot be sold in Court auction.

He prays to allow the revision petition.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/D.Hr. mainly contended that petitioner never pleaded in his counter that E.