Pidapathi Lakshmi Kumar vs Mukkera Satyanarayana Reddy
2022 Latest Caselaw 8642 AP

        HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE No.: A.S.No.234 of 2018

                             PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                             OFFICE
                                          ORDER

No      DATE                                                                     NOTE

13.   10.11.2022   Dr. VRKS, J

                                     I.A.No.1 of 2022

                         Learned    counsel   on     both   sides   are   in
                   attendance.

The petitioner suffered decree in the trial Court and filed the first appeal. During pendency of the first appeal, by virtue of orders in I.A.No.2 of 2017 and I.A.No.1 of 2020 stay of execution was granted with a direction to the judgment debtor/defendant/petitioner/appellant to deposit 1/4th of the decree amount along with costs. According to the petitioner, on 18.09.2022 in compliance with the above orders, she deposited an amount of Rs.2,32,577/-.

That the decree holder got 1800 square yards of site covered by certain buildings attached. Its value is more than Rs.90,00,000/-. The building consists of various tenants and because of the orders of attachment, the landlord/the present petitioner is unable to enter into lease deeds and get them registered. It is in these circumstances, by the present petition, she seeks to raise the attachment over the immovable property, which is subject matter in E.P.No.60 of 2018 in O.S.No.88 of 2010 and in its place permit her to offer another security, which is an immovable property of the petitioner's husband. According to the petitioner, such prayer was made before the executing Court but the application was dismissed on the ground that execution proceedings were stayed by this Court. It is in these circumstances, she has come up with this petition.

In the presence of the learned counsel for respondent, the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that after obtaining instructions from his client, he states that the petitioner may be permitted to furnish sufficient bank guarantee towards the balance decree amount that is due and on such furnishing bank guarantee the attachment over the immovable property be raised.

Learned counsel for respondent reported no objection stating that if proper bank guarantee to the satisfaction of the trial Court is furnished, decree holder has no objection to have the attachment raised.

Considering the above submissions and fact situation, the present petition is allowed in the following terms:

The petitioner/appellant/J.Dr. shall furnish bank guarantee for the amount that would fully satisfy the principal, interest and costs, which are due to be paid to decree holder after giving allowance to what was already deposited. This bank guarantee shall be submitted to the executing Court to its satisfaction. Once the executing Court accepts the bank guarantee, the attachment over E.P. schedule property shall stand raised.

In these terms, this petition is allowed without costs.

A.S.No.234 of 2018

At request of learned counsel for appellant, adjourned for hearing 'finally'.

List the matter on 29.12.2022.

_____________ Dr. VRKS, J Ivd