JUDGMENT 1. This appeal is filed against the order and decree in E.A.No.142 of 2002 in E.P.No.36 of 2002 in O.S.No.583 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram. 2. The appeal arises out of execution proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent against respondents 2 and 3. The brief facts, that gave rise to the filing of this appeal, are as under: 3. The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.583 of 1999 against respondents 2 and 3 in the Court of II Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam, for recovery of certain amount. He has also filed an application under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., and obtained an order of attachment before judgment, as regards two houses, bearing Door Nos.7- 63 & 64 of Ward No.10, Block No.10; and 7-112 of Ward No.7, Block No.10 of V. Madugula, Visakhapatnam District, belonging to the respondents 2 and 3. The suit was decreed on 08-03-2002. After the decree became final, he filed E.P.No.36 of 2002 and brought the attached properties to sale. At that stage, the appellant filed E.A.No.142 of 2002 under Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C. 4. The appellant pleaded that respondents 2 and 3 borrowed substantial amounts from him, and when they did not repay the same, he filed O.S.No.9 of 2002 in the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram, and obtained a decree on 22-04-2002. It is stated that in pursuance of the decree, the respondents 2 and 3 have executed the sale deed, dated 27-09-2002. It was pleaded that much before the execution was launched, he became the absolute owner of the property, and the same item cannot be brought to sale in E.P.No.36 of 2002. 5. Since the application filed under Rule 58 of Order 21 is almost a suit, the Executing Court issued notices to the respondents. The matter was contested, actually by the 1st respondent alone. He pleaded that the appellant, in collusion with the respondents 2 and 3, had obtained a decree in O.S.No.9 of 2002, only with a view to defeat the decree in O.S.No.583 of 1999, and in view of the fact that the property stood attached, by virtue of an order passed under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., the alleged sale, between the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, is of no legal consequence. 6. 6. The Court below dismissed E.A., holding that the decree in O.S.No.9 of 2002 was collusive in nature, and at any rate, it could not have the effect of defeating the rights of the 1st respondent, to execute the decree in O.S.No.583 of 1999, vis--vis the property in question. 7. Sri E.V. Bhagiratha Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that his client is not a party to O.S.No.583 1999, and a sale, which was held in pursuance of a decree in O.S.No.9 of 2002, cannot be annulled or defeated in the execution of the decree in O.S.No.583 of 1999. ] 8. Sri Satyanarayana Nimmagadda, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, on the other hand, submits that the sequence of events would clearly disclose that there was a clear collusion between the appellant and respondents 2 and 3, and their effort was only to keep away the property in question, from being proceeded against. He contends that whatever be the enforceability of the decree in O.S.No.9 of 2002, it cannot be used as a tool, to defeat the order passed under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., in O.S.No.583 of 1999. 9. Before the Executing Court, the appellant was examined as PW-1, and three more witnesses were examined as PWs 2 to 4. Exs.A-1 to A-7 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 10. While the appellant is not a party to O.S.No.583 of 1999, the 1st respondent is not a party in O.S.No.9 of 2002. Therefore, the respective enforceability of decrees vis--vis defendants therein, does not stand diluted, in any manner on account of the other. It is a matter of record, that having filed O.S.No.583 of 1999, the 1st respondent obtained an order of attachment before judgment, under Order 38 Rule 5 C.P.C., in respect of the properties, mentioned above. The same continued till the disposal of that suit, which was decreed on 08-03-2002. The truth or otherwise of the claim made by the appellant, against respondents 2 and 3, is not the subject-matter of this appeal. If the appellant had a valid and enforceable claim against respondents 2 and 3, and obtained a valid decree in O.S.No.9 of 2002, he could have certainly executed the decree against the judgment-debtors, in accordance with law. The truth or otherwise of the claim made by the appellant, against respondents 2 and 3, is not the subject-matter of this appeal. If the appellant had a valid and enforceable claim against respondents 2 and 3, and obtained a valid decree in O.S.No.9 of 2002, he could have certainly executed the decree against the judgment-debtors, in accordance with law. The very fact that the suit came to be decreed ex parte, hardly within one month from the date on which O.S.No.583 of 1999 was decreed, and the respondents 2 and 3 executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant, in pursuance of the ex parte decree without the assistance of the Court; throws any amount of doubt, as to the genuinity of the transactions. 11. Be that as it may, the sale deed executed by respondents 2 and 3, in favour of the appellant herein, would have become valid, if there did not exist any prohibition vis- -vis such transactions. Once an order of attachment before judgment is operating in respect of the property, the respondents 2 and 3 were prohibited from transferring that property. The mere fact that they volunteered to sell the property in the ostensible satisfaction of the decree, in O.S.No.9 of 2002, is of no legal consequence. 12. The Executing court approached the matter from the correct perspective, and this Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.