SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(AP) 21256

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
B S BHANUMATHI
A BHALOL BASHA – Appellant
Versus
N ASHA BEE – Respondent
CRP 1099/2026



##PAGE1##

2026:APHC:22222

APHC010126252026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI [3311]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

Friday, the First day of May

Two Thousand and Twenty Six

Present

The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi

Civil Revision Petition No: 1099 of 2026

Between:

A. Bhalol Basha ...Petitioner

and

N. Asha Bee and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the petitioner:

1. D. Shyam Sundar

Counsel for the respondents:

1. N. Chandra Sekhar Reddy

The Court made the following:

##PAGE2##

2

BS2B0, 2J6 :APHC:22222

C.R.P.No.1099 of 2026

ORDER:

This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against

the order dated 09.01.2026 in E.P. No. 31 of 2022 in O.S. No. 33 of

2018 on the file of the Court of Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division),

Anantapuramu.

2. The revision petitioner is the J.Dr. No.2, respondent No.1 is the

D.Hr., respondents Nos.2 and 3 are the J.Drs. Nos.1 and 3.

3. The D.Hr. obtained a decree dated 21.01.2020 for an amount of

Rs.12,60,000/- with interest and costs. For execution of the decree, E.P.

No. 31 of 2022 was filed under Order XXI, Rule 54, 64 and 66 C.P.C. to

order attachment of the schedule property and sell the same for

realization of the decretal amount.

4. The J.Dr. No.1 filed a counter admitting his ownership over the

E.P. schedule property prior to filing of the execution petition, but further

stated that he had executed a registered agreement of sale-cum-

general power of attorney on 07.10.2021 in favour of the J.Dr. No.2 for

consideration of Rs.37,51,000/- and delivered possession of the

property there-under and as such, J.Dr. No.2 has been in possession

and enjoyment of it since the time of the agreement. It is further stated

that the J.Dr. No.1 paid the entire decretal amount to the D.Hr., but E.P.

was filed due to the misunderstandings between the J.Dr. No.1 and the

husband of the D.Hr. Further, the J.Dr. No.1 pleaded that he has no

means and is attending daily wage work.

5. The J.Dr. No.2 filed a separate counter contending that he had

purchased the E.P. schedule property under a registered agreement of

sale-cum-general power of attorney dated 07.10.2021 from the J.Dr.

No.1 for consideration of Rs.37,51,000/- and that he has been in

possession and enjoyment of the E.P. schedule property as on the date

##PAGE3##

3

BS2B0, 2J6 :APHC:22222

C.R.P.No.1099 of 2026

of the agreement and since then he has been enjoying the property, but

E.P. was filed due to collusion between the D.Hr. and J.Dr. No.1.

6. The J.Dr. No.3 remained ex parte

7. On behalf of the D.Hr., N.Asha Bee was examined as P.W.1 and

a certified copy of sale cum power of attorney dated 07.10.2021

executed by the J.Dr. No.1 in favour of the J.Dr. No.2 was marked as

Ex.P1. On behalf of the J.Dr. No.2, A.Bhalol Basha was examined as

R.W.1.

8. After hearing both the parties, the execution Court allowed the

execution petition and ordered attachment of E.P. schedule property.

Aggrieved by the same, this revision petition was filed.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that

Section 64 (2) C.P.C. prohibits attachment of the property of the J.Dr.

which was already agreed to be sold under a registered agreement prior

to the date of attachment. He further submitted that the agreement in

the present case is dated 07.10.2021, whereas the decree was passed

on 21.01.2020 and later, the execution petition was filed on 08.04.2022

and therefore, he vehemently contended that the execution Court

committed a serious error in ordering attachment of the same property

in violation of Section 64 (2) C.P.C. To buttress his arguments, he

placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Salem

Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India1, wherein

at paragraph No.26, it is held as follows:

“Section 64(2) in the Code has been inserted by Amendment

Act, 22 of 2002. Section 64, as it originally stood, has been

renumbered as Section 64(1). Section 64(1), inter alia,

provides that where an attachment has been made, any

1

2005 0 AIR(SC) 3353

##PAGE4##

4

BS2B0, 2J6 :APHC:22222

C.R.P.No.1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top