ORDER :

This revision-petition is directed against the Order, dated 20.04.2015 in E.P.No.81 of 2014 in O.S.No.46 of 2014 on the file of Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Nandikotkur, whereunder the Execution Court raised attachment over item No.1 of E.P., schedule and directed to hand over the said property to the Finance Company, which is having Hypothecation Agreement in its favour for the said property i.e., vehicle bearing No.AP21 TW 6275 (Mahindra Bolero Camper SC XL F vehicle), purchased by the respondent No.1/judgment-debtor under Hypothecation Agreement with the respondent No.2/Finance Company.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the execution petition proceedings.

3. The execution petition was filed by the decree-holder under Order XXI Rule 66 and 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity ‘CPC’) for sale of two (02) motor vehicles shown in E.P., schedule as item No.1 and item No.2, respectively, for recovery of decree amount due from the judgment-debtor. The learned Execution Court, after hearing both sides and considering their respective contentions, passed the impugned Order, partly allowing the execution petition for sale of item No.2 property only and simultaneously raised the attachment over item No.1 motor vehicle and released the property to the respondent No.2 i.e., Finance Company, which is having hypothecation agreement with the judgment-debtor for the said vehicle.

4. The learned counsel for the revision-petitioner/decree-holder would submit that the decree-holder filed the execution petition against judgment-debtor/respondent No.1 only under Order XXI Rule 66 and 77 of CPC for the sale of two (02) motor vehicles i.e., item No.1 and Item No.2 of the E.P., schedule and the Execution Court during the proceedings of the execution petition suo motu impleaded the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as parties to the execution proceedings on the ground that the ‘Registration Certificate’ (RC) book of the said vehicles are having an endorsement of the Transport Authority, showing as hypothecated to respondent No.2 and whereas, RC of item No.2 vehicle contains an endorsement as hypothecated to respondent No.3. though the said respondents did not file any application under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC for raising the attachment claiming the vehicles, later, passed the impugned Order raising the attachment against the item No.1 of the E.P., schedule and released the vehicle in favour of respondent No.2, while allowing the execution petition against item No.2 of the E.P., schedule for sale. He would further submit that the impugned Order is illegal and the Execution Court suo motu cannot implead the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as parties to the execution proceedings and raise the attachment releasing the item No.1 vehicle to the respondent No.2.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2/Finance Company would submit that the Order of the Trial Court is not suffered with any illegality or irregularity and the Execution Court can implead any party to the proceedings for just decision in a case and the Execution Court can implead the parties using its inherent powers for just decision of the case. He would further submit that the revision-petitioner/decree-holder did not challenge the earlier order of the Execution Court impleading the respondent Nos.2 and 3 as parties to the execution proceedings and therefore, now he cannot challenge the same while questioning the impugned Order, dated 20.04.2015.

6. In the light of above rival contentions, the point that would arise in the revision-petition is as under: - “Whether the Execution Court committed any material irregularity in the Order, dated 20.04.2015 passed in E.P.No.81 of 2014 in O.S.No.46 of 2014?”

7. POINT: -

It is an admitted fact that the revision-petitioner/decree-holder obtained a decree against the respondent No.1/judgment-debtor for recovery of amount and he filed the execution petition vide E.P.No.81 of 2014 on the file of Senior C