- (1.)THIS revision petition is filed against the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku in E.P. No. 30 of 1987 in O.S. No. 19 of 1974.
(2.)THE 1st respondent society was given some land of the first petitioner for establishment of a college on a condition that the society shall deposit Rs. 1,50,000/ - with Temple as a corpus and the interest accrued thereon shall be treated as the rent for leasing out the property to the 1st respondent society for a period of 30 years. There was a delay of 1? years in deposit of Rs. 1,50,000/ - after delivery of the property to the 1st respondent.
The revision petitioner filed a suit against the respondents for realisation of the amount due towards interest on the amount from the date of possession till the date of deposit, being the loss suffered by the first petitioner due to delayed payment of the said amount. The lower Court decreed the suit for Rs. 39,703.27 with interest and costs. The petitioner filed E.P. No. 62 of 1981 for realisation of the amount by way of attachment and sale of the property of the 2nd judgment debtor. That reached the stage of sale and when the property was actually brought for sale there were no bidders, therefore, the lower Court dismissed the said execution petition for want of bidders. Subsequently the revision petitioner filed E.P. No. 30 of 1987 once again bringing the properties of the 2nd judgment debtor for sale. The 2nd judgment debtor questioned the maintainability of the execution petition contending that there is a statutory bar under Section 8 of the Societies Registration Act 1860 (for short "the Act"). Though similar objection raised in the earlier execution petition was rejected, the lower Court found some force in the objection raised by the 2nd judgment debtor and accordingly dismissed the execution petition on the ground that it is not maintainable due to the bar provided under Section 8 of the Act. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the order of the lower Court, preferred this revision challenging its validity and legality.

(3.)THE point for consideration is whether the execution petition is maintainable against the respondents in view of the bar provided under Section 8 of the Act?