APHC010538652025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH FRIDAY,THE FIFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: Between: 1. G. KANAKAMMA, R/o.D.No.10-03-206K, KOTAKOMALA LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. 1. POLI VANAJA, W/o.POLISUBRAMANYAM, R/o.D.No.10-03-206K1, KOTAKOMALA LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. Mr.SAI AKASH N Counsel for the Respondent: 1. Mr.G.VENU MADHAV CHOWDARY 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (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 G. KANAKAMMA, W/o.P.GOPINADH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 206K, KOTAKOMALA LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND POLI VANAJA, W/o.POLISUBRAMANYAM, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 206K1, KOTAKOMALA LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, TIRUPATI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: Counsel for the Respondent: Mr.G.VENU MADHAV CHOWDARY IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3209] THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA 2659 of 2025 P.GOPINADH, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 206K, KOTAKOMALA LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, ...PETITIONER AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, 206K1, KOTAKOMALA LAYOUT, TIRUPATI, ...RESPONDENT 2 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 3 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 4 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 created prior to order of attachment dated 08.05.2023, the respondent / D.Hr., cannot execute the decree by bringing the said property for sale. In normal circumstances, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner may merit acceptance. However, in the present case, the petitioner / defendant suffered a decree on 31.10.2022 and even as per the material available on record, a mortgage was created subsequently on 29.11.2022. Thus, the act of the petitioner / J.Dr., it is obvious, to frustrate the execution of the decree by the D.Hr., and the same cannot be countenanced. 8. Further, as seen from the counter filed in E.P., it is not the case of the petitioner / J.Dr., that she is not aware of the judgment and decree and the mortgage was created without knowledge of the decree granted by the learned Trial Court. At this juncture, it may be relevant to refer to the above said decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which is with regard to the inaction of the Registration Authorities of registration of the Sale Certificate executed by the Bank. The Registration Authorities in the said writ petition refused to register the document on the premise that attachment orders were passed by a Civil Court. The said writ petitions were disposed of in the light of the judgment rendered in City Union Bank Limited v. The Sub- 5 Registrar, Peddapalli1, wherein it was held that the attachments effected subsequent to the mortgage created in favour of the bank do not affect the rights of the secured creditor. The same is not applicable to the present fact situation, a clear case of frustrating the decree by the J.Dr. 9. This Court, considering the matter in its entirety, see no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the learned Executing Court, more particularly as there is no illegality or perversity, much less error of jurisdiction. 10. Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed. _____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA, J Date: 05.12.2025 BLV 1 2018 (5) ALT 279 (DB) 6 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA C.R.P.No.2659 OF 2025 Dt: 05.12.2025 BLV