* THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI *THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3050/2025 % 14.11.2025 # 1. Guturi Ranga Ratnam ……Petitioner And: $1. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co.Ltd., & 2 others ….Respondents !Counsel for the petitioner : Sri A.Eswar Sai ^Counsel for the respondent : <Gist: >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. (1990) 3 SCC 291 2. (2008) 14 SCC 258 HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI * * * * CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3050/2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED: 14.11.2025 SUBMITTED FOR APPROVAL: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgments? Yes/No 2. Whether the copies of judgment may be marked to Law Reporters/Journals Yes/No 3. Whether Your Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the Judgment? Yes/No ___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J ________________________________________ VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3050/2025 ORDER: (per Ravi Nath Tilhari, J) Heard Sri Anasuri Eswar Sai, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 2. Respondent No.1 is the Decree Holder against the respondent Nos.2 & 3 who are J.Drs.1 & 2 respectively. There is an award passed by the Arbitrator in A.R.C.No.10 of 2009, dated 28.02.2009. For execution of the said award, respondent No.1 filed E.P.No.185 of 2021. In the said EP, the petitioner, as claim petitioner, filed petition, under Section 47 & Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, claiming the EP schedule property with respect to which his case is that he entered into the agreement of sale with respondent No.2. Agreement of sale is said to be dated 01.10.2021. The said EA.No.364 of 2024 was dismissed as not maintainable by an order dated 10.01.2025 by VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada. The petitioner again filed another application being EA.No.474 of 2025 under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC for the same relief, which was rejected on 22.07.2025. Challenging the order dated 22.07.2025, the present CRP under Section 115 CPC has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner on a specific query submits that the order dated 10.01.2025 was not challenged by the petitioner. 4. However, he submits that the suit for specific performance of contract pursuant to the agreement of sale dated 01.10.2021 has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance in Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan1 to contend that the attachment made after the agreement of sale shall not take away the right of the petitioner and consequently, the claim petition filed under Order 21 Rule 58 was maintainable which has wrongly been rejected as not maintainable. He has also placed reliance in the case of Kancherla Lakshminarayana v. Mattaparthi Syamala2 to contend that an agreement holder can prevent the right of the auction purchaser to get the sale confirmed. 5. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the material on record. 6. So far as the order impugned in the present CRP is concerned, is the order dated 22.07.2025. The rejection of the petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC is on the ground that previously also the petition under Order 21 Rule 58 for the same relief was filed which was rejected on 10.01.2025 and consequently the second petition was held not maintainable. There is no challenge to the order dated 10.01.2025 neither in the present petition nor previously as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the order impunged for rejecting the second petition under Order 21 Rule 58. The legality or otherwise of the 1 (1990) 3 SCC 291 2 (2008) 14 SCC 258 order dated 10.01.2025 is not the subject matter of this CRP and therefore not a matter for consideration. 7. So far as the judgment cited are concerned in Sreedharan (supra) there was an agreement of sale dated 09.10.1978 followed by the sale deed dated 23.11.1978 and in between in execution of decree by a 3rd party, the subject property was attached on 16.11.1978. In Sreedharan (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court observed as under: “ In our opinion, the view taken by the High Courts of Madras, Bombay, Calcutta and Travancore-Cochin in the aforesaid cases appears to be reasonable and could be accepted as correct. The agreement for sale indeed creates an obligation attached to the ownership of property and since the attaching creditor is entitled to attach only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor, the attachment cannot be free from the obligations incurred under the contract for sale. Section 64 CPC no doubt was intended to protect the attaching creditor, but if the subsequent conveyance is in pursuance of an agreement for sale which was before the attachment, the contractual obligation arising therefrom must be allowed to prevail over the rights of the attaching creditor. The rights of the attaching creditor shall not be allowed to override the contractual obligation arising from an antecedent agreement for sale of the attached property. The attaching creditor cannot ignore that obligation and proceed to bring the property to sale as if it remained the absolute property of the judgment-debtor. We cannot, there- fore, agree with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mohinder Singh's case AIR 1971 Pb. & Haryana.” 8. In Sreedharan (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the agreement for sale indeed creates an obligation attached to the ownership of property and since the attaching creditor is entitled to attach only the right, title and interest of the judgment-debtor, the attachment cannot be free from the obligations incurred under the contract for sale. The Hon’ble Apex Court further held that Section 64 CPC was intended to protect the attaching creditor, but if the subsequent conveyance is in pursuance of agreement for sale which was before the attachment, the contractual obligation arising therefrom must be allowed to prevail over the rights of the attaching creditor. 9. At this stage, we refer to Section 64 of CPC which reads as under: 64. Private alienation of property after attachment to be void. — [(1)] Where an attachment has been made, any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein and any payment to the judgment-debtor of any debt, dividend or other moneys contrary to such attachment, shall be void as against all claims enforceable under the attachment. [(2)] Nothing in this section shall apply to any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein, made in pursuance of any contract for such transfer or delivery entered into and registered before the attachment.] Explanation.—For the purpose of this section, claims enforceable under an attachment include claims for the rateable distribution of assets. 10. A perusal of Section 64(2) CPC clearly shows that sub-section (1) shall not apply to any private transfer or delivery of the property attached or of any interest therein made in pursuance of any contract for such transfer or delivery entered into and registered before the attachment. So where there is a private transfer or delivery of the property attached in pursuance of any agreement of sale which was entered into and registered before the attachment, sub-section (1) of Section 64 which makes the private alienation of the property after attachment to be void, would not be attracted. 11. In Sreedharan (supra), pursuant to the agreement of sale of a date prior to the date of attachment there was a subsequent sale after the attachment. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that if the subsequent conveyance is in pursuance of agreement for sale which was before the attachment, the contractual obligation arising therefrom must be allowed to prevail over the rights of the attaching creditor, but it is not the case here. 12. In the present case firstly the agreement of sale, which is said to be of a date prior to the attachment is not registered and secondly there is no subsequent sale pursuant to such agreement of sale. 13. In Kancherla Lakshminarayana (supra) the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated what was laid down in Sreedharan (supra). 14. In Kancherla Lakshminarayana (supra), the High Court had rejected the application under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC on the ground that the mere agreement holder could not prevent the right of auction purchaser to get the sale confirmed. The appellant had an agreement of sale and filed a suit for specific performance of contract. The said agreement of sale was not denied by respondent No.2 therein. Therefore it was held that whether the agreement of sale was good agreement of sale entitling the appellant for specific performance on the basis of that agreement was essentially a question to be decided subsequently in the suit. Under such circumstances there was a cloud on the property and a person like the appellant who had the obligation qua the property in the shape of an agreement of sale could not be held to be an utter outsider having no locus standi to take the objections. As per the aforesaid judgment it follows, that a person having an agreement of sale prior to the date of attachment and having filed a suit for specific performance of contract, cannot be said to have no locus standi to maintain the objection under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. 15. Para-23 of Kancherla Lakshminarayana (supra) reads as under: 23. Again, it cannot be said that the present appellant has no locus standi to raise an objection to the sale for the simple reason that he had filed a suit on the basis of an agreement of sale. The factum of the agreement of sale was not denied by the second respondent. Therefore, whether the agreement of sale was a good agreement of sale entitling the appellant for specific performance on the basis of that agreement is essentially a question to be decided subsequently in the suit (though the suit is earlier to the suit filed by the first respondent). Under such circumstances there was a cloud on the property and a person like the appellant who had the obligation qua the property in the shape of an agreement of sale could not be held to be an utter outsider having no locus standi to take the objections. This is the import of the aforementioned decision in Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan case {(1990) 3 SCC 291}. To the same effect is the judgment in Purna Chandra Basak v. Daulat Ali Mollah {AIR 1973 Cal 432} where the learned Single Judge of that Court has held: (Purna Chandra Basak case, AIR p. 434, para 8) 8…..An attaching creditor can only attach the right, title and interest of his debtor at the date of the attachment and on principle, his attachment cannot confer upon him any higher right than the judgment-debtor had at the date of the attachment. If a person, having a contract of sale in his favour, has such pre-existing right the attachment could not be binding upon him. If the promisee gets a conveyance, after the attachment, in pursuance of his contract, he takes a good title in spite of the attachment." 16. In Kancherla Lakshminarayana (supra) as per the facts not only the agreement of sale was prior to the filing of the execution but also the suit for specific performance of contract was filed in the year 1996 and it was transferred to some other Court where it was numbered as O.S.No.31 of 2000, whereas the execution petition was filed in the year 2002, in which an application under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC to raise the attachment was filed. In the present case the agreement of sale is not registered so as to attract Section 64(2) CPC, and the suit for specific performance filed in the year 2025 was also not pending at the time of first rejection of the petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC vide order dated 10.01.2025. 17. We are of the view that petitioner’s first E.A.No.364 of 2024 having been rejected the Second EA.No.474 of 2025 filed for the same relief by the same petitioner could not be maintainable, simply because after dismissal of the first EA.No.364 of 2024, the petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of contract. In the absence of any challenge to the order dated 10.01.2025, the rejection of EA.No.474 of 2025 vide the impugned order, in view of previous rejection cannot be said to be illegal or unsustainable. 18. The learned Court has rightly passed the impugned order which calls for no interference in the order impugned. 19. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed. ___________________ RAVI NATH TILHARI,J ________________________________________ VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO,J Dated: 14.11.2025 Note: L.R. copy be marked B/o. AG 100 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3050/2025 Dated: 14.11.2025 Note: L.R. copy be marked B/o. AG