S.V. Bhatt, J.—Auction purchaser in the pending proceedings in E.P.No.99 of 2009 in O.S.No.389 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali, is the revision petitioner. The C.R.P. is directed against the order in E.A. No.252 of 2014 dated 19.12.2014.

2. The 1st respondent in the C.R.P. filed E.A.No.252 of 2014 in E.A. No.96 of 2013 under Order XXI Rule 59 of Civil Procedure Code (for short CPC) for stay or to stop the delivery proceedings pending in E.A. No.96 of 2013 in E.P.No.99 of 2009. The executing Court through docket order dated 19.12.2014 ordered thus:

“To avoid the un-necessary complications in the interest of justice, the delivery proceedings in E.A.96/2013 in E.P.99/2009 in O.S.389/2006 is hereby stayed, call on 31.12.2014, meanwhile issue notice to Respondents 1 to 3.”

3. The revision petitioner being aggrieved by the grant of stay of delivery of E.P. schedule property pending in E.A.No.96 of 2013 filed the present C.R.P.

4. The circumstances necessary for disposing of instant revision are as follows:

The 2nd respondent in the revision filed O.S.No.389 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kavali to recover a sum of Rs.43,000/- and odd from 3rd respondent herein. On 05.09.2006, the trial Court ordered attachment before judgment of the following property:

“Sri P.S.R.Nellore District Registration- Kavali Sub Registration- Jaladanki Mandal- Chamadala Village an extent of Ac.1.30 cents in S.No.522/8 and an extent of Ac.0.20 cents in S.No.522/9 in total Ac.1.50 cents of land out of Ac.1.53 cents within the following boundaries.

East : Road

South : Land of Devalla Chenchaiah

and others

West : Vagu

North : Land of Pallapu Ankaiah as per

the instant E.P.schedule, as

per the petitioner Pallapu

Anjaiah

5. O.S.No.389 of 2006 was decreed on 02.07.2009. The 2nd respondent is executing the Decree in E.P.No.99 of 2009 by putting to sale the attached property. On 06.11.2012, the property was sold and the revision petitioner purchased the E.P. Schedule in the auction conducted by the Court. On 31.01.2013, sale certificate was issued in favour of revision petitioner. On account of resistance, in one form or the other, for actual delivery of E.P. schedule property the E.P. is pending. The revision petitioner filed E.A.No.96 of 2013 for appropriate orders from the executing Court. While the matters stood thus, the 1st respondent filed E.A.Nos.251and 252 of 2014 under Order XXI Rules 58 and 59 CPC respectively. The case of 1st respondent is that on 07.06.2006, agreement of sale was entered into between the 1st and 3rd respondents in the revision petition and a regular sale deed was executed on 01.04.2011 between them. The 1st respondent is unaware or ignorant of either the attachment order dated 05.09.2006 in O.S. No.389 of 2006 or knows anything about the pending execution proceedings. The 1st respondent with the above contentions filed claim and stay petitions in E.A. Nos. 251 and 252 of 2014 as stated above.

6. Mr. N.Vijay, learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that the executing Court committed serious illegality by ordering stay of delivery under Order XXI Rule 59 CPC in E.A.No.252 of 2014. According to the learned counsel, the executing Court can certainly entertain an application filed under Rule 59 of Order XXI CPC provided the petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC in E.A.No.251 of 2014 is maintainable. The learned counsel relies upon the proviso to Order XXI Rule 58 CPC and submits that once the E.P. schedule property is not only sold, but sale certificate is issued in favour of revision petitioner herein, prohibition in law for entertaining the claim petition at the instance of any one much less the 1st respondent who claims to be a purchaser of suit schedule property when the attachment is in force is attracted.

7. The learned counsel places strong reliance upon the decisions reported in P.M. Doraswamy Reddy v. T.M. Gowri Sanker, 1987(1) ALT 583. M.Jayamma