APHC010378932025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Tuesday, the second day of The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: Between: P.Mahaboob Basha Ammisetty Kanthamma and o Counsel for the petitioner: Ayesha Azma S Counsel for the respondent NIL The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) day of December two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B.S.Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 1821 of 2025 ...Petitioner and and others ...Respondents etitioner: espondents: The Court made the following: [3311] two thousand and twenty five Petitioner Respondents 2 C.R.P.No.1821 of 2025 O R D E R: This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C. against the order dated 17.07.2025 returning the petition by a detailed order in E.A.C.F.No.2514 of 2025 dated 14.07.2025, a petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. 2. The case of the petitioner, is briefly, as follows: The 1st respondent / D.Hr. filed the suit in O.S.No.204 of 1979 for partition. As she died, her legal representatives are now the respondents Nos.10 to 13. The respondents Nos.2 to 9 are the J.Drs. The revision petitioner filed the returned execution application under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. to declare his title in item No.3 of E.P. schedule property on the ground that he purchased the said property under a registered sale deed on 01.10.2001 from P.Hyder Vali Khan vide document No.8607 of 2001 and that his vendor purchased the said property on 01.09.1999 vide a registered document No.6976 of 1999 from P.Fakruddin and P.Jafar Vali who in turn purchased the property from the deceased respondent No.2 and the respondents Nos.7 and 9 on 16.04.1998 under a registered sale deed document No.2479 of 1998. 3. The execution Court returned the petition on 11.07.2025 with the following objections: “1. As per the record the suit is filed in the year 1979, it was preliminarily decreed on 08.12.1983 and final decree was passed on 30.11.2015. The contention of the petitioner herein is that he purchased the petition schedule property on 01.10.2001 from one P.Hyder Vali Khan. He filed this petition when Court Amin went to the petition schedule property for execution of delivery warrant, in the year 2025. Under these circumstances, how this petition is maintainable pendent lite at the stage of delivery of property by the 3 C.R.P.No.1821 of 2025 purchaser. The purchaser is at liberty to exercise his rights from his vendor. 2. The petitioner herein is neither the D.Hr. nor the purchaser of the petition schedule items 2 and 3 in execution of decree, hence it is to be explained as to how this petition is maintainable under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C.” 4. Then, the revision petitioner / claimant represented the petition with the following answer to the objections on 14.07.2025. “1. A purchaser of a part of decree schedule property even if he is not a party to the suit, can file petition under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. He need not exercise his remedy against his vendor. He can as well file petition under Order 21 Rule 97 of C.P.C. in this connection 1) 2003(0) Supreme (SC) 1173, 2) 2025 Live Law (SC) 293 are submitted.” 5. Thereafter, the matter was called at Bench and heard. On 17.07.2025, after considering the decisions in Ashan Devi and another Vs. Phulwasi Devi and others1 and Periyammal (dead) through LRs and others Vs.V.Rajamani and another2 relied on by the petitioner / claimant wherein it was held that the remedy under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. is available not only to the D.Hr. but also to a stranger who obstructs the delivery of the possession of the property claiming a derivative title from J.Dr. or independent right, title or interest in the decretal property and also that third party can obstruct execution of a decree by filing application under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C., the execution Court ordered return of the petition holding that the petitioner, being purchaser of the part of the schedule property during pendency of the proceedings before the Court, is bound by the decree and cannot refuse to vacate the property. 1 2003 (O) Supreme (SC) 1173 2 2025 Live Law (SC) 293 4 C.R.P.No.1821 of 2025 6. Aggrieved by the said order, this revision petition is filed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even before numbering the petition, the execution Court passed order on merits to return the petition and it is impermissible. She further submitted that the petitions similarly filed by other parties having numbered. She further submitted that the observation made by the execution Court to return the petition is improper as the petition is yet to be adjudicated on merit, whereas the objection initially raised is only with regard to maintainability of the petition by the purchaser of property from a party under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. and the same has been duly answered by the revision petitioner and accepted by the execution Court. 8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the execution Court, having agreed with the legal preposition regarding the maintainability of the application, erred in returning the petition making observation on merit regarding the right claimed by the petitioner in the petition. Therefore, it is a case fit to set aside the impugned order to the extent of returning the petition by making such observation on merit. 9. Accordingly, the revision petition is allowed and the observation of the execution Court in para No.5 of the order dated 17.07.2025 is set aside, with a direction to the execution Court to register the petition and thereafter pass appropriate order on merits after giving due opportunity to all parties. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ B. S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.02.12.2025 PNV