Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 502 (AP)

Yenneti Srinivas v. Pula Varada Raj Kumar

2008-07-14

G.V.SEETHAPATHY

body2008
ORDER :- Heard the learned Counsel for the respondents. None appears for the petitioner. Perused the record. 2. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 22.9.2006 passed in EA No.56 of 2006 in OS No.159 of 2002. on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Machilipatnarn, wherein the said application filed by the revision petitioner seeking to order ratable distribution of the amounts between the petitioner and respondent No.1 herein was dismissed. 3. The petitioner and 1st respondent are said to have obtained the decrees against the 2nd respondent. The petitioner obtained a decree for a sum of Rs.1 ,50,000/- in OS No.143 of 2002 and in execution for the said decree, he filed EP No.43 of 2003 in order to bring the property of the 2nd respondent to sale. According to him, he came to know that the 1st respondent filed the present suit OS No.159 of 2002 against the 2nd respondent and obtained a decree and brought an amount of Rs.5,19,996/- to the credit of the present suit from the 3rd respondent-bank. Hence, the petitioner herein filed the application seeking to order ratable distribution of the amount between himself and the 1st respondent. 4. The learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the 1st respondent being a secured creditor and he having obtained a preliminary decree on 8.9.2003 and final decree on 18.8.2005 on the basis of the mortgage, the said mortgage debt would have to be satisfied first and the balance amount can be apportioned among other creditors. He would further submit that even after satisfying the debts due in favour of the 1st respondent, still there would be a surplus amount. The trial Court has rightly held that after satisfying the decree in favour of the 1st respondent, the other persons, claiming against the 2nd respondent, would be entitled for satisfaction of their claims from out of the balance amount. 5. The impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity so as to warrant interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs.