APHC010318782025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA AT AMARAVATI PRADESH FRIDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY present the honourable SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CjVIL REVISION PFTiTinM K|r>. We of the II Additional District Judge. Vijayawada. Between: JULY FIVE 1614 OF 20?.*; Yenugu Sri Rama Chandra aged about 43 Murthy. S/o. Venkata R/o. Flat Satyanaraayana, Road No.8, years, B-Block, KVR Vallay, Mallampet No.302, Hyderabad-500118. ...Proposed Petitioner AND 1. Alia Gurava Reddy, S/o. Seetarama Reddy, Cultivator about 53 years. Resident of Prodduturu Krishna District. (Decree Holder) 2. Padamata Suresh Babu, ‘ Business. Resident of Near ‘ Kankipadu Mandal. Krishna District. Hindu, aged Village, Kankipadu Mandal, ... Respondent/Petitioner/DHR S/o. Venkateswara Rao aged about 45 years Gowda Ramalayam, Proddutur Village, (Judgment Debtor) ...Respondent/Respondent/JDR , y. lA NO: 3 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC, praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in EP.No.17 of 2021 in OS No. 196 of 2012, on the file of the Court of the II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dated 24.04.2024, including the auction sale. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI N RAVI PRASAD, Advocate Counsel for the Respondents: - The Court made the following order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION (^NO: ^^12025 ORDER: Heard Sri N.Ravi Prasad, learned counsel for the proposed petitioner, and perused the material on record. The 1®' respondent is the decree-holder/plaintiff. The 2 nd 2. respondent is the judgment-debtor/defendant. The petitioner is the third party. O.S. No.196 of 2012 on the file of the XIV Additional 3. District and Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, was filed for recovery of money with subsequent interest and costs by the St respondent/plaintiff and was decreed against the 2^"^ respondent/defendant, vide judgment and decree dated 1 11.03.2015. The 1®^ respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.17 of 2021, in 4. which the Execution Court passed an order dated 24.04.2024, rejecting the objection raised by the judgment-debtor against the notice issued under Order 21 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (in short ‘CPC’) and directing attachment of the 2 (RNT,J E.P. schedule property. An attachment was issued to the judgment-debtor through Court. notice under Rule 54(1-A) 5. Challenging the petitioner/third party has filed the present Civil order dated 24.04.2024 the Revision Petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner is a bonafide purchaser for valuable subsequent vendors of the judgment-debtor, was filed in the year 2012, and the first debtor occurred in 2019 in favour of other third the property was transferred i ‘ whom the petitioner purchased the contends that the impugned order i schedule property belongs to the petitioner. petitioner submits that the consideration from the He submits that the suit transfer from the judgment- parties. Thereafter in 2023 to the petitioner’s vendor, from property in the same year. He IS not sustainable as the E.P. 7. This Court is of the view that the petitioner i raising claim to E.P. schedule attachment that such IS in fact property and objecting to the property has not to be attached being the any objection and remedy under CPC. The petitioner's property. For such a claim adjudication, the petitioner has alternative /■ 3 (RNT,J learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the availability of the alternative remedy under CPC. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to 8. I entertain the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is urgency in the matter, as the auction of the E.P. schedule property, earlier scheduled for 16.06.2025, is now for 14.07.2025. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy before the appropriate forum, and if any application for interim relief is also filed, the Court concerned shall make endeavour to consider such an application expeditiously, after affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff/decree holder as well, in accordance with law, subject to there being no other legal impediment. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed on 10. the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy, however with the observations made herein above. No order as to costs. 4 (RNT,J As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous pending, shall also stand closed. petitions, if any Sd/- M PRABHAKAR RAO assistant registrar //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, 1. The II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. Krishna District. 2. The XIV Additional District & Sessions 3. One CC to Sri N. Ravi Prasad 4. Two CD Copies Judge, Vijayawada. Advocate [OPUC] GPC sree HIGH COURT DATED: 04/07/2025 ORDER CRP NO. 1614 OF 2025 DISMISSING THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS