APHC010606482016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] FRIDAY ,THE SEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 6482/2016 Between: Munikoti Rajeswara Rao ...PETITIONER AND Bosetti Venkataramana ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. PRABHAKAR PERI Counsel for the Respondent: 1. 2 The Court made the following order: The present revision petition is filed against order dated 27.09.2016, passed in E.P.No.31 of 2016 in O.S.No.94 of 2015, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvathipuram. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent filed suit in OS.No.94 of 2005, for recovery of amount based on a promissory note. Upon contest, the said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 19.04.2016. Despite having means, the petitioner/judgment debtor did not choose to pay the decretal amount. In those circumstances, the respondent filed execution petition vide EP.No.31 of 2016, on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge at Parvathipuram, under Order 21 Rule 54, 66 & 64 CPC, seeking to attach the petition schedule properties. After hearing both the parties the execution court by impugned order dated 27.09.2016, allowed the execution petition by issuing attachment warrant over the petition schedule property. Questioning the same, the present revision petition is filed. 3. It is the case of the petitioner/judgment debtor that he was leased out with the petition schedule property by the General Manager of AFIL Industries for a period of 99 years and thereby 3 cultivating the said land. He further contended that he has no salable interest over the petition schedule property. 4. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent. 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. The petitioner/judgment debtor stated that he has no salable interest over the petition schedule property and to substantiate the same he did not file any documentary proof nor lease deed executed in his favor. In the absence of the same, the contentions of the petitioner/judgment debtor cannot be proved. Further, no claim petition is filed by the third parties claiming rights over the petition schedule property. Therefore, the Execution Court has rightly allowed the petition by attaching the petition schedule property. In view of the above, there are no merits in the revision petition and accordingly the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. ______________________ JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR Dt.07.02.2025 DSB 4 140 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D. SEKHAR CRP No.6482 of 2016 Date 07.02.2025 U DSB