The court reiterated the procedure for attachment of immovable property under Order XXI Rule 54 of the CPC and emphasized the importance of following due process in execution proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Bandaru Syamsunder, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners/Judgment Debtors/defendants under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (in short CPC) against the Orders passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda, in E.P. No. 78 of 2015 in O.S. No. 189 of 2013, dated 14.10.2016, wherein and whereby the learned Executing Court allowed the execution petition filed by the respondent/DHr holding that execution petition schedule property of revision petitioners/JDrs is liable to be attached and can be sold for realization of debt due to the respondent/DHr.

2. The case of the revision petitioners in brief is that as per orders of the executing court, on receipt of notice the revision petitioners made appearance and also filed counter in execution petition stating that they preferred appeal suit against Judgment and decree in O.S. No. 189 of 2013 wherein they sought for stay of execution of decree of the suit vide A.S.(SR). No. 457 of 2016 on the file of High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which is pending and prays to dismiss the petition.

3. As per the information available to this Court basing records a suit has been filed by the respondent/DHr in O.S. No. 189 of 2013 against the revision petitioners/JDrs on the basis of pronote said to have been executed by one Mr. T. Rama Krishna and the 1st petitioner/1st JDr and thereafter suit was decreed on 06.10.2015 wherein trial court directed the revision petitioners/JDrs to pay a sum of Rs. 9,85,000/- from out of the estate of the deceased Mr. Rama Krishna and also casting personal liability on the 1st revision petitioner/1st JDr, which revision petitioners failed to pay due to that the respondent sought attachment of immovable property and sale in Court auction for realization of decretal debt.

4. The learned Executing Court after hearing both sides allowed execution petition over ruling objections raised by the revision petitioners and held that execution petition property is liable to be attached and can be brought to sale for realization of debt due to the respondent/DHr.

5. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the trial Court, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the JDrs on the ground that one Mr. E. Lakshmi Narayana is not their advocate but they engaged Mr. D.B.C.L.V. Prasad as their counsel and one Mr. K. Samba Siva Rao and Eswararao are his juniors, who also filed vakalat on behalf of the revision petitioners but executing court passed orders without taking into consideration of the said fact due to that it is illegal and unsustainable. They also alleged that respondent/DHr played fraud. It is also the contention of the revision petitioners that suit in O.S. No. 189 of 2013 filed by the respondent/DHr was decreed on 06.10.2015 against which they preferred A.S. No. 113 of 2016, which is pending and attachment of their property and auctioning the same without following the procedure prescribed under law is illegal and against the principles of natural justice, they prays to allow the revision petition and set aside the orders passed by the executing Court on 14.10.2016.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the revision petitioners.

7. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners that the revision petitioners have not engaged advocate Mr. Lakshmi Narayana but the respondent played fraud and obtained the orders from the executing Court. She submits that today case is posted for sale of execution petition schedule properties belonged to the petitioners though appeal preferred by the petitioners before this Court is pending, she prays to allow the revision petition.

8. Now the issue that emerges for consideration of this Court is:-

'Whether the Order under challenge is sustainable and tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this court under Section 115 of C.P.C?'

POINT:-

9. Before going into the merits of the case, it would be beneficial to quote Order XXI Rule 54 of CPC, which reads as under:-

54. Attachment of i