APHC010538652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3209]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 2659 of 2025 Between:

1. G. KANAKAMMA, W/o.P.GOPINADH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/o.D.No.10-03-206K, KOTAKOMALA LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. POLI VANAJA, W/o.POLISUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/o.D.No.10-03-206K1, KOTAKOMALA LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. Mr.SAI AKASH N Counsel for the Respondent:

1. Mr.G.VENU MADHAV CHOWDARY The Court made the following Order:

The present Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated

05.08.2025 in E.P.No.34 of 2023 in O.S.No.272 of 2018 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Tirupati.

2. The revision petitioner herein is the judgment debtor(J.Dr.). The respondent / decree holder (D.Hr.) filed the above said suit for recovery of amount on the foot of a promissory note. After a full-fledged trial, the said suit was decreed by Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2022. The respondent / D.Hr., filed E.P.No.34 of 2023 under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 of Civil Procedure Code for ordering proclamation and sale of E.P.Schedule Property for realization of the decretal mount. The petitioner / J.Dr., filed counter and contested the E.P. The learned Executing Court allowed the same by an order dated 05.08.2025.

3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner / J.Dr. Also heard learned counsel for the respondent / decree holder (D.Hr.) / plaintiff.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions with reference to the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Revision. He submits that the E.P.Schedule property was mortgaged on 29.11.2022 as is evident from the Encumbrance Certificate dated 28.06.2025 filed along with the Revision Petition. He submits that thereafter, an order of attachment of the E.P.Schedule Property was passed on 08.05.2023 and that once a charge is a created by way of mortgage, the same is not liable for attachment. He submits that the learned Executing Court without considering the matter in the proper perspective, allowed the E.P., and the order under challenge is not sustainable. The learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 17.11.2023 passed in W.P.No.6488 of 2022 & batch etc.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent made submissions to sustain the order under revision. He submits that the Judgment and Decree in the suit was passed on 31.10.2022 and the petitioner / J.Dr., though having knowledge of passing of the judgment and decree, created a mortgage of the E.P.Scheduel Property on 29.11.2022 only to frustrate the judgment and decree. He submits that the learned Executing Court after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects, allowed the E.P., that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, he urges for dismissal of the revision petition.

6. This Court has considered the submissions made. Perused the material on record and the only point that arises for consideration is : Whether the impugned order warrants interference by this Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case?

7. At the outset, it may be pertinent to mention that against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.10.2022 in O.S.No.272 of 2018, the petitioner / J.Dr., had not preferred any appeal. Be that as it may. Seeking execution of the judgment and decree in the suit, the respondent / D.Hr. / plaintiff filed E.P.No.34 of 2023. In the interregnum, the petitioner / J.Dr., had created mortgage on the property in question on 29.11.2022 and the same was subsequently attached by an order dated 08.05.2023. It is not in dispute that the order of attachment dated 08.05.2023 was not challenged by the petitioner / J.Dr. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the mortgage was