ORDER : K. MANMADHA RAO, J. This Civil Revision Petition is preferred aggrieved by the order dated05.07.2024 passed in E.P.No.47 of 2023 in O.S No.131 of 2008 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepalligudem (for short “Executing Court”). 2. The present impugned EP No.47 of 2023 in O.S No.131 of 2008 has been filed by the respondents herein before the Executing Court seeking to issue prior notice to J.D R under Order 21 Rule 54 C.P.C and to attach the Schedule property there after issue notice to J.D.Rs under order 21 Rule 64 to 66 C.P.C and brought the same for sale and recover the E.P amount, subsequent interest etc. After hearing the submissions of both the learned counsels and keeping in view the circumstances of the case the Executing Court has allowed the said E.P. at the stage of Rule 22 of Order 21 of the Code and held that the schedule property is ordered to be attached under Rule 54 of Order 21 CPC and simultaneously order Rule 54 (1-A) CPC notice to the judgment debtors on process. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein preferred the present Civil revision petition. 3. Heard Sri T.V.Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri K. Mahadev, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. On hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Executing Court is contrary to law and suffers from jurisdictional errors. He submits that the Executing Court ought to have seen that the suit O.S No.131 of 2008 is filed against the petitioners herein for recovery of amount Rs.2,00,000/- with subsequent interest basing on the promissory note dt.26-05-2006 and the said suit was decreed on 23-02-2011. He further submits that the Executing Court ought to have seen that the 1st respondent herein had filed E.P No. 135 of 2011 and the same was withdrawn, as by the time of filling the said E.P 1st respondent/D.Hr is no more. Moreover, the Executing Court ought to have seen that the present E.P is filed for attachment of 96.sq.yards with R.C.C roofed building bearing Door number 7-82, in R.S no.322 of Meenavalluru Village Grampanchayat, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District with specific boundaries. Moreover, the Executing Court ought to have seen that the present E.P is filed for attachment of 96.sq.yards with R.C.C roofed building bearing Door number 7-82, in R.S no.322 of Meenavalluru Village Grampanchayat, Pentapadu Mandal, West Godavari District with specific boundaries. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not owners of the said land and that the respondents herein had not filed any document to show that the said property to be sold belong to the petitioners. He further submits that the Hon'ble Executing Court ought to have seen that a counter is filed by the petitioners herein specifically stating that the respondents/Petitioners in the E.P had not produced any succession certificate to execute the Decree as the D.Hr who obtained Decree is no more and the Decree is executable by the Respondents No.2 & 3 herein. Learned counsel mainly contended that even by the date of filing of E.P No. 135 of 2011 the Decree Holder is no more and no steps were taken by the Respondents No.2 & 3 herein in the said E.P. When the said E.P was dismissed no liberty was sought to proceed against the properties of J.Dr in future, and hence the E.P is not maintainable as it is res judicata and the impugned E.P. is barred by limitation. Further, the Hon'ble Executing Court ought to have seen that the L.Rs of 1st Petitioner herein were not added to the present E.P. as the 1st petitioner died after the decree was passed jointly against her and the 2nd petitioner herein, the L.Rs of the 1st petitioners are proper and necessary parties and that the boundaries, door number mentioned for the E.P schedule property is not correct and no survey number was also mentioned. He further submits that the EP schedule property does not belong to either of the petitioners, as the same belong to the mother-in-law of the 2nd petitioner. He further submits that the Hon'ble Executing Court ought to have seen that when the notice was issued under Order 21 Rule 22, C.P.C to the petitioners/J.Dr herein the counter filed by them has to be considered before passing proceeding further in the E.P. 5. He further submits that the Hon'ble Executing Court ought to have seen that when the notice was issued under Order 21 Rule 22, C.P.C to the petitioners/J.Dr herein the counter filed by them has to be considered before passing proceeding further in the E.P. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the Hon’ble Executing Court has rightly concluded and passed the order, therefore, as there is no error in the order of the Executing Court, prayed to dismiss the civil revision petition. 6. Perused the material on record. 7. As seen from the impugned order, it is observed that, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner therein is that the respondents/judgment debtors did not choose to pay the decretal amount and by the time of filing the EP fell due of Rs.7,27,199/- with subsequent interest and costs and the present EP is filed for recovery of the said amount and costs Rs.13,353/-. Moreover, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents therein is that the petitioners therein did not produce succession certificate to execute the decree said to have been obtained by the deceased 1 st decree holder, as such, they are not entitled to execute the decree and also contends that the other legal heirs of the deceased 1 st judgment debtor i.e., Kavuru Lakshmi Bavani, Ketha Srinu, Ketha Venkat Krishna and husband of the deceased 1 st judgment debtor Ketha Venkateswarlu are not added as legal representatives of the deceased 1 st judgment debtor in the main suit. 8. On a perusal of the above, this Court is observed that, the Hon'ble Executing Court ought to have seen that the Executing Court ought to have seen that the L.Rs of 1 st petitioner herein were not added to the present E.P. as the 1 st petitioner died after the decree was passed jointly against her and the 2 nd petitioner herein, the L.Rs of the 1 st petitioners are proper and necessary parties.It is also observed that when the notice was issued under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC to the petitioners/Judgment Debtors, the counter filed by them has to be considered before passing proceeding further in the E.P. 9. Order 21 Rule 22 CPC, extracted hereunder: 22. Order 21 Rule 22 CPC, extracted hereunder: 22. Notice to show cause against execution in certain cases.-(1) Where an application for execution is made,- (a) more than ¹[two years] after the date of the decree, or (b) against the legal representative of a party to the decree for where an application is made for execution of a decree filed under the provisions of section 44A], [or] [(c) against the assignee or receiver in insolvency, where the party to the decree has been adjudged to be an insolvent,] the Court executing the decree shall issue a notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause, on a date to be fixed, why the decree should not be executed against him: Provided that no such notice shall be necessary in consequence of more than two years] having elapsed between the date of the decree and the application for execution if the application is made within two years] from the date of the last order against the party against whom execution is applied for, made on any previous application for execution, or in consequence of the application being made against the legal representative of the judgment-debtor if upon a previous application for execution against the same person the Court has ordered execution to issue against him. (2) Nothing in the foregoing sub-rule shall be deemed to preclude the Court any process in of a thereby prescribed, if for reasons to be recorded, it considers that the issue of such notice would cause unreasonable delay or would defeat the ends of Justice. 10. On a plain reading of the above, in the present case, it is also observed that, if the objections are raised by the petitioners/J.Drs in the impugned E.P., the same has to be considered in proper prospective with regard to the ownership of the E.P schedule property and also with regard to the extent, Door Number, boundaries and the survey numbers. It is settled Law that boundaries prevail over the extent, when the petitioner had specifically pleaded that the boundaries stated in the E.P schedule property are wrong, burden is on the respondents to prove about the correctness of the boundaries for the property to be executed. It is settled Law that boundaries prevail over the extent, when the petitioner had specifically pleaded that the boundaries stated in the E.P schedule property are wrong, burden is on the respondents to prove about the correctness of the boundaries for the property to be executed. It is also observed that, the LRs of the 1 st petitioner herein were not added to the present impugned EP as the 1 st petitioner died after the decree was passed jointly against her and the 2 nd petitioner herein, the LRs of the 1 st petitioner are proper and necessary parties. Therefore, it appears that the Executing Court has erred in passing the impugned order and the impugned order passed by the Executive Court is arbitrary and perverse to the law and the facts. 11. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 5.7.2024 passed in EP No.47 of 2023 in O.S No.131 of 200 by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tadepalligudem is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Executing Court with a direction that the Executing Court shall decide the same afresh on merits after recording the evidence and affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to both the parties. There shall be no order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.