APHC010069602026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI [3163]

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

FRIDAY,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 444/2026 Between:

1. C HALAMALASETTY BHASKARA SATYANARAYANA VARA PRASAD,, S/O. KRISHNA ARJUNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/O.

BHASKARAPURAM, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...PETITIONER AND

1. M IRIYALA RAMESH, S/O. RANGA RAO, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O. BATCHUPET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT

2. K ANIGANTI SRIRAMACHANDRA MURTHY, S/O. LATE KOTAIAH, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O. D.NO.21/381, BHASKARAPURAM, VINAYAKA TEMPLE STREET, MACHILIPATNAM, KRISHNA DISTRICT.

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased to the above named petitioner begs to present the above CRP aggrieved by the order dt. 22-12-2025 in E.A.No. of 2025 (un-numbered) in E.P.No.40 of 2019 in O.S.No.80 of 2017 on the file of the court of the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

IA NO: 1 OF 2026 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to grant stay of all further proceedings including sale in E.P.No.40 of 2019 in O.S.No.80 of 2017 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam, Krishna District, pending disposal of the above the revision, in the interest of justice, and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1.

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a third party in execution proceedings initiated by the decree holder in E.P.No.40/2019 in O.S.No.80/2017 on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Machilipatnam. The decree holder has filed the execution petition for sale of the property in question which is a vacant site for realization of the decretal amount as per the decree passed in his favour in a suit filed by him for recovery of money on the foot of promissory note. Petitioner, who is the third party to the suit in the execution proceedings, filed a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of C.P.C claiming title over the property in question and sought to raise the attachment over the schedule property. The executing Court dismissed the said petition at the threshold by way of passing a detailed speaking order and thereby refused to entertain the claim made by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved thereby, he has preferred the instant revision petition.

3. Order XXI Rule 58 (5) of C.P.C mandates that when a claim or objection preferred is not entertained by the executing Court under proviso to sub-rule (1), the party against whom the said order is passed may institute a suit, establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute and subject to the result of the said suit, the order shall be conclusive. Therefore, the remedy of the petitioner is by way of filing a suit as the executing Court refused to entertain his claim made under Order XXI Rule 58 of C.P.C. But without availing the said remedy, he has preferred the present revision.

Therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this revision petition.

4. Resultantly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, petitioner is at liberty to file a suit, if he is so advised or entitled in terms of clause 5 of Order XXI Rule 58 of C.P.C. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

________________________________________ JUSTICE CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY Date: 13.02.2026 Vns