ORDER :

SUMATHI JAGADAM, J.

1 The issue for consideration on the present revision is whether a litigant, who files a petition before the executing court and, upon it being returned with observations regarding its maintainability, can, without representing the matter before that court, directly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The obvious answer is in the negative.

2 The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 11.01.2024, whereby his application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing E.A. (CFR) No. 107 of 2023 in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 arising out of O.S. No. 110 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, to set aside the sale held on 23/11/2023, was returned with the following endorsement.

Returned 11/01/2024 “How this claim petition is maintainable, since no right title or interest will be passed to the petitioner and pray attach of schedule property. Hence Returned.”

3 The first respondent, as plaintiff, instituted O.S. No. 110 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the second respondent, arrayed as defendant therein, seeking recovery of money. The suit was decreed ex parte on 11.11.2021

4 Pursuant to the decree and judgment, the decree-holder (first respondent) instituted E.P. No. 29 of 2022 under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure for realization of the decretal amount of Rs.30,59,177/- by bringing the schedule property of the second respondent to sale. The matter thereafter came up for confirmation of sale.

5 Subsequently, the revision petitioner filed a claim petition under Order XXI, Rule 58, and Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the sale dated 23.11.2023.

6 The schedule property described in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 in O.S. No. 110 of 2020 had already been attached in E.P. No. 119 of 2020 in O.S. No. 66 of 2015, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. This attachment was filed by the revision petitioner against M/s Sri Sandhya Enterprises Cotton Ginning Mill, represented by the second respondent herein.

7 The claim petition filed by the revision petitioner was returned on 11.01.2024 with the office objection as mentioned above.

8 Challenging the order of return, the revision petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition.

9 (a) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner instituted a suit in O.S. No. 66 of 2015 before the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, against the second respondent for recovery of Rs. 32,62,878.71. The suit was decreed on 13.11.2018.

b) The second respondent preferred A.S. No. 116 of 2019 before this Court, and by order dated 20.03.2019 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019, this Court granted stay of the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2018 in O.S. No. 66 of 2015, subject to the condition that the second respondent deposit 50% of the decretal amount in the suit account.

c) Upon the second respondent’s failure to comply with this direction, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 119 of 2020 in O.S. No. 66 of 2015. On 08.02.2020, the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, ordered attachment of the scheduled property of the second respondent.

d) The same scheduled property had already been attached and sold in execution proceedings in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 in O.S. No. 110 of 2020 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur.

e) Learned counsel further submits that the first respondent is a close relative of the second respondent, being his daughter’s father-in-law, and alleges that the decree obtained by the second respondent is collusive and has been engineered solely to defeat the claim petitioner’s rights.

f) It is further contended that instead of returning the petition filed by him the trial court ought to have entertained the claim petition (E.A. (CFR) No. 107 of 2022 in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 in O.S. N