JUDGMENT:

Heard Sri G. Venkata Subba Raju, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T. V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

2. This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed challenging the Order dated 14.08.2023 passed by the X Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Pitapuram in I.A.No.360 of

2023 in pending A.S.No.40 of 2023.

3. By the said Order, dated 14.08.2023, the application of the 1st respondent, the claim petitioner under Order 41 Rule 5 r/w. Section 151 CPC for grant of stay of execution proceedings in E.P.No.102 of 2018 in O.S.No.81 of 2017 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni has been allowed for limited period which has been extended from time to time.

4. The petitioner is the Decree Holder and also the auction purchaser. The

1st respondent is the claim petitioner, under Order 21 Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure (in short ‘CPC’). The 2nd respondent is the Judgment Debtor.

5. The plaintiff/petitioner filed O.S.No.81 of 2017 for recovery of money based on promissory note which was decreed on 09.11.2017. In E.P.No.102/2018 for execution of the decree, the property of the judgment debtor, which was under attachment, was put to auction in sale in which the petitioner/decree holder purchased the same. In the said E.P.No.102 of 2018, the 1st respondent herein filed claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC raising claim over the execution petition schedule property on the ground that he is the bona fide purchaser of the said property and consequently, prayed to release the sale property. It was claimed that he had purchased the said property vide registered sale deed dated 10.06.2013 vide Document No.3825/13 from its lawful vendor, namely, Gadi Ramana. The said Gadi Ramana had purchased the same vide registered sale deed dated 30.03.2013 from the present 2nd respondent, the judgment debtor, who is the son of Gadi Ramana.

6. The present petitioner resisted the claim inter alia on the ground that the registered sale deed dated 10.06.2013 in favour of the 1st respondent was not valid and enforceable under law, for the reason that his vendor had no saleable interest. It was also contested on the ground that the sale deed dated 30.03.2013 i.e., in favour of the vendor of the claim petitioner was cancelled in Insolvency Petition No.6 of 2013 vide order dated 09.07.2015, which attained finality.

7. The learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tuni rejected the claim of the

1st respondent vide Order dated 21.03.2023. It held that the judgment in Insolvency Petition No.6 of 2013 attained finality and once the sale deed dated 30.03.2013 was cancelled by the learned Senior Civil Judge, the subsequent alienations of the property would not confer any title, right or interest over the said property in favour of the claim petitioner.

8. Challenging the Order dated 21.03.2023, the claim petitioner/1st respondent herein filed A.S.No.40 of 2023. In the said appeal, he filed I.A.No.360 of 2023 for grant of stay. The same has been allowed by the XII Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Pithapuram vide Order dated

14.08.2023, impugned in the present petition.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very basis of the claim petitioner’s title is the sale deed dated 10.06.2013 from his vendor, who had the sale deed dated 30.03.2013 in her favour. But once the sale deed dated 30.03.2013 was cancelled in Insolvency Petition No.6 of 2013 by Order dated 09.07.2015, which Order attained finality, the claim petitioner/appellant in A.S.No.40 of 2023 had no case for grant of stay order. Consequently, his submission is that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

10. Sri T. V. Jaggi Reddy, learned counsel, representing the 1st respondent, submits that the appeal of the claim petitioner had been admitted and if the stay order is not granted, the claim petitioner would be put to prejudice and irreparable injury would be caused if in the meantime