M % 'i. V. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI THURSDAY. THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 387 OF 2025 Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, aggrieved by the order dt 20-01-2016 in E.P.NO 14 /2015 in O.S NO 127 /2012 on the file of the Court of Civil (Senior Division) judge at Avanigadda, Krishna District. Between: Ganji Suseela, W/o. Yesobu Hindu aged about 40 years, R/o. Bandikolla Lanka Mopidevi Mandal Krishna District U CRP 24232/2016 ...Petitioner / Plaintiff /DHR AND Dasari Koteswara Rao, S/o. Rama Rao, Hindu aged about 70 years. R/o. Harijana Wada, Mopidevi Mandal Krishna District. ...Respondents / Defendant / JDR Counsel for the Petitioner :SRI. GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following: -4 APHC011422572016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3505] THURSDAY ,THE THIRTIETH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.C.D.SEKHAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 387/2025 Between: Ganji Suseela ...PETITIONER AND Dasari Koteswara Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.GHANTASALA UDAYA BHASKAR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: The Court made the following order; The present revision is filed aggrieved by the order dt.20.01.2016 passed in E.P.No.14 of 2015 in O.S.No.127 of 2012, on the file of the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Avanigadda. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she filed suit for recovery of amount against the respondent herein based on a promissory note. Upon contest, the said suit was decreed by Judgment and decree dated 17.10.2014. The said Judgment attained finality in as much as the respondent did not file any appeal. 3. Be that as it may, the petitioner filed execution petition in E.P.No.14 of 2015 under Order 21 Rules 54, 64 and 66 of CPC, seeking to attach the EP schedule property and to issue proclamation of sale notice to Judgment Debtor and to conduct public auction as provided for under Order 21 Rule 82 of CPC, so as to realize the decretal amount. The said application contested by the respondent and in fact he has also filed a counter affidavit stating that the EP schedule property was gifted to his granddaughter by gift deed dated 15.04.2014 i.e., to say even prior to the passing of Decree and as such, the execution petition is not maintainable, since the EP schedule property does was not belong to the Judgment debtor on the date of filing of the execution petition. The Execution Court by impugned order dismissed the same and the said order is being assailed in the as present revision petition. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the service of notice, none appears for the respondent. petitioner. Despite 5. Perused the material available on record. 6. It is not in dispute that the EP schedule property was gifted by the respondent to his granddaughter, even prior to the passing of the decree and therefore, the Judgment debtor/respondent was not having any saleable interest in the EP schedule property and without impleading the donee, the maintainability of the execution petition does not arise. Therefore, the question of bringing the EP schedule property for sale also equally does not arise, in as much as, the substantial property rights of the donee will get affected the event of allowing the execution petition. The petitioner in all probabilities ought to have impleaded the donee , in as party respondent to the execution proceedings and without presence, as rightly held by the Execution Court, the EP is not maintainable and the property cannot be put to auction. The order her of the Execution Court is a well reasoned one and does not warrant the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. 7. However, it is always open to the petitioner to take steps available under law, if he is so advised. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- A. VIJAYA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil (Senior Division) judge at Avanigadda, Krishna District, (with records) 2. The Civil (Junior Division) judge at Avanigadda, Krishna District, (with records) 3. OneCCto Sri. Ghantasala Udaya Bhaskar Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies PR Cnr ■f4 HIGH COURT DATED:30/01/2025 ORDER CRP.No.387 of 2025 DISMISSING THE CRP