APHC010144672014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: Between: Talari Naganna, Golla Venkata Swamy Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. MANJUNATH ALLUR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. S VENKATA SUBBA RAO 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3365] THURSDAY ,THE TWENTIETH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3014/2014 ...PETITIONER AND Golla Venkata Swamy ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: MANJUNATH ALLUR Counsel for the Respondent: S VENKATA SUBBA RAO [3365] THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE DR V R K KRUPA SAGAR ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT 2 The Court made the following Order: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 02. Perused the material available on record. 03. O.S.No.15 of 2005 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nandikotkur, a suit for recovery of money. A decree was passed in favor of the plaintiff. The D.Hr intended to proceed against the properties of J.Dr and filed E.P.No.39/2009. In the meantime, the daughters of J.Dr raised a claim in E.A.No.6/2013. After due contest, the said claim was dismissed. During the proceedings of the claim petition, it transpired that the property against which the D.Hr intended to proceed did not belong to the J.Dr because of difference in survey numbers. In such circumstances, attachment was also raised. Thereafter, the D.Hr filed E.A.No.40/2013 praying for amendment of E.P. schedule therein to bring appropriate survey numbers. After due enquiry, by order dated 24.03.2014, the execution court over ruled the objections and permitted the D.Hr to carry out the amendment in the E.P. Aggrieved by the order, the J.Dr filed the present revision. 04. Having considered the submissions and the grounds urged in the revision which essentially point out that, during execution proceedings court was not expected to allow the D.Hr to move 3 any application under order VI Rule 17 CPC, the contention raised also found unaccepted. 05. In the result, this revision is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stands closed. _______________________________ JUSTICE DR. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR Date:20.03.2025 KKV 4 158 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE DR. V.R.K.KRUPA SAGAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3014/2014 Dated 20.03.2025 KKV