A party contesting property attachment must pursue available statutory remedies; courts can deny petitions under Article 227 if such remedies exist.

ORDER :

Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the proposed petitioner, and perused the material on record.

2. The 1^st respondent is the decree-holder/plaintiff. The 2^nd respondent is the judgment-debtor/defendant. The petitioner is the third party.

3. O.S. No.196 of 2012 on the file of the XIV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, was filed for recovery of money with subsequent interest and costs by the 1^st respondent/plaintiff and was decreed against the 2^nd respondent/defendant, vide judgment and decree dated

11.03.2015.

4. The 1^st respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.17 of 2021, in which the Execution Court passed an order dated 24.04.2024, rejecting the objection raised by the judgment-debtor against the notice issued under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure ,1908, (in short ‘CPC’) and directing attachment of the E.P. schedule property. An attachment notice under Rule 54(1-A)

was issued to the judgment-debtor through Court.

5. Challenging the order dated 24.04.2024, the petitioner/third party has filed the present Civil Revision Petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration from the subsequent vendors of the judgment-debtor. He submits that the suit was filed in the year 2012, and the first transfer from the judgment- debtor occurred in 2019 in favour of other third parties. Thereafter, the property was transferred in 2023 to the petitioner’s vendor, from whom the petitioner purchased the property in the same year. He contends that the impugned order is not sustainable as the E.P., schedule property belongs to the petitioner.

7. This Court is of the view that the petitioner is in fact raising claim to E.P. schedule property and objecting to the attachment that such property has not to be attached being the petitioner’s property. For such a claim, any objection and adjudication, the petitioner has alternative remedy under CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the availability of the alternative remedy under CPC.

8. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is urgency in the matter, as the auction of the E.P. schedule property, earlier scheduled for 16.06.2025, is now for 14.07.2025. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy before the appropriate forum, and if any application for interim relief is also filed, the Court concerned shall make endeavour to consider such an application expeditiously, after affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff/decree holder as well, in accordance with law, subject to there being no other legal impediment.

10. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy, however with the observations made herein above.

No order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.