IMPORTANT POINT
Undertakings given by the petitioner to pay personally justified the attachment of his property and precluded him from challenging it.

ORDER :

1. The Civil Revision Petition No.262 of 2022 is filed being aggrieved by the docket order dated 17.01.2022 passed in E.P.No.27 of 2019 in O.S.No.414 of 2023 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court.

2. The Civil Revision Petition No.264 of 2022 is filed being aggrieved by the docket order dated 17.01.2022 passed in E.P.No.28 of 2019 in O.S.No.415 of 2023 on the file of XII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court.

3. Since the revision petitioner in both the Civil Revision Petitions is one and the same and the issue to be adjudicated is also one and the same, they are heard together and being disposed of by way of this common order.

4. The respondent No.1 in C.R.P No.262 of 2022 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.414 of 2018 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court against M/s. Vensa Laboratories Private Ltd., representing by its Managing Director, for recovery of Rs.24,40,808/- and the said suit was decreed by judgment dated 30.07.2018. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.27 of 2019 against the Revision Petitioner, who said to have worked as Managing Director in the Judgment-Debtor Company. The revision petitioner contested the E.P and the Court below attached the house property of the Civil Revision Petitioner.

5. Likewise, the respondent No.1 in C.R.P No.264 of 2022 herein filed a suit in O.S.No.415 of 2018 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court against M/s. Vensa Laboratories Private Limited represented by its Managing Director, for recovery of Rs.24,24,908/- and the said suit was decreed by judgment dated 30.07.2018. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.28 of 2019 against the Revision Petitioner, who said to have worked as Managing Director in the Judgment-Debtor (for short ‘J.Dr’) Company. The revision petitioner contested the E.P and the Court below attached the house property of the Revision Petitioner through impugned order. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders, the petitioner came with the present revisions.

6. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, Learned Senior Counsel for Vedula Chitralekha, learned Counsel for the Revision petitioner and Sri P.Krishna Arjun, the learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 in both the petitions.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the Court below erred in allowing the execution petition as the schedule property does not belong to the J.Dr., and as a matter of fact the attached property is the exclusive property of the Civil Revision Petitioner, who is the Former Managing Director of J.Dr firm. Further the Decree Holder (D.Hr) did not impleaded the Civil Revision Petitioner either in the suit or the Execution Petitions. The Court below ought to have called upon the D.Hrs to show that the subject property belongs to the J.Dr-company instead of placing the burden on the J.Dr to prove that the property does not belong to it. The Court below failed to see that the property of the former Managing Director of the J.Dr cannot be brought to sale for the discharge of decretal amount due from the J.Dr to the D.Hr, more particularly when the said Managing Director has not been impleaded either to the suit or to the E.P. Proceedings.

8. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the execution petition is not filed in the proper form in accordance with Order-XXI, Rule 66 and 64 of Civil Procedure Code. The property mentioned in the execution petition does not belongs to the J.Dr Company and the said property is the absolute, exclusive and personal property of the revision petitioner, who worked as the Managing Director of the J.Dr Company. The said property is covered under Sale Deed No.815 of 2001 on the file of SRO, Bowenpally and Sale Deed No.544 of 2002 on the file of SRO, Kukatpally. The decree was passed against the J.Dr company only, but not against the persons represented by the J.Dr company and hence the decree to be treated as estate decree passed against the J.Dr company and its properties and