Back
2022 Supreme(AP) 324
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
B.S. BHANUMATHI, J.
Sri Buridi Srinivas, - Appellant
Versus
Srikakulam Municipal Corporation – Respondent
C.R.P.No.535 of 2021
Decided on : 29-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : G V S KISHORE KUMAR
For the Respondent: M MANOHAR REDDY SC FOR MUNC AND MUNC CORP
The central legal point established is the requirement for the court to adjudicate upon the claim or objection before proceeding with the execution of the property, as per Order 21, Rule 58(1) CPC.
Headnote:
Order XXI Rule 58 CPC - Execution of Property - The court directed the execution court to dispose of the claim petition before proceeding with the sale of the property, emphasizing the requirement to adjudicate upon the claim or objection as per Order 21, Rule 58(1) CPC.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in E.P.No.52 of 2008, claiming that the execution court was proceeding with the sale of the property without disposing of the claim petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the execution court was proceeding with the sale of the property despite the pendency of the claim petition, contrary to the requirement under Order 21, Rule 58(1) CPC to adjudicate upon the claim or objection.
Issues: The main issue was the execution court's failure to dispose of the claim petition before proceeding with the sale of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement under Order 21, Rule 58(1) CPC for the court to adjudicate upon the claim or objection before proceeding with the execution of the property.
Final Decision: The revision petition was allowed, and the execution court was directed to dispose of the claim petition before proceeding with the sale of the property.
ORDER:
1. This revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/claimant against the orders dated 24.03.2021 in E.P.No.52 of 2008 in O.S.No.3 of 2000 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Srikakulam.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.Santosh Reddy, representing the learned counsel for respondent/municipality.
3. The main grievance of the revision petitioner is that he filed an application under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in E.P.No.52 of 2008, but the execution Court is proceeding further with the sale of the property without disposing of the claim petition filed by him. On 24.03.2021, as per the docket proceedings of the execution Court, it is seen that the office made an endorsement that E.A. is pending. However, the Court recorded that ‘counsel for DHr is present and no representation for JDr’ and ordered fresh proclamation for sale by 26.04.2021 and posted the matter for further hearing on 03.05.2021, apart from ordering publication in Eenadu telugu daily news paper.
4. The learned counsel for the respondent/DHr contends that the property is different.
5. It is not the stage to go into the merits of the claim made in the claim petition by the revision petitioner. The only grievance of the revision petitioner is that while claim petition is pending, the execution Court is going ahead with the sale of the property without deciding the claim petition. It is astonishing that the execution Court is proceeding with the execution inspite of pendency of claim petition vide E.A.No.77 of 2021 filed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC, though it is expressly stated in Order 21, Rule 58(1) CPC that where any claim is preferred etc, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection. Therefore, the execution Court is directed to dispose of E.A.No.77 of 2021 before proceeding any further for sale of the property.
6. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
