APHC010557672025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3329] TUESDAY,THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2797/2025 Between: 1. YADALA VENKATESWARLU, S/O. CHINA VENKATA SUBBAIAH, AGED 47 YEARS, RESIDENT OF BANDIVELIGANDIA VILLAGE, DARSI MDL., PRAKASAM DIST., ...PETITIONER AND 1. CHANDRA GURU MURTHY DHR, (DHR) S/O. KOTAIAH, HINDU AGED 64 YRS. RESIDENT OF MUKKALAPADU VILLAGE, NUZENDIAMANDAL, VINUKONDA PALNADU DIST., 2. KATARI VENKATESWARA RAO JDR, S/O. KOTAIAH, HINDU AGED 62 YRS. RETIRED EMPLOYEE RESIDENT OF FLAT NO. 135, M/S. RADHAKRISHNA AVENUES INDIA PVT. LTD., MANDUVAVARIPALEM (VILLAGE), ONGOLE MANDAL PRAKASAMDIST., ...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 topleased to set aside the return endorsement dated 7-10-2025 passed in E.A. No ...of 2025 in EP No. 303 of 2019 in O.S.No. 190 of 2015 on the file of 1st Addl. District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam Dist., and direct the Learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam Dist., to consider E.A...of 2 2025 ie. My Claim Petition in EP No. 303 of 2019 in O.S.No. 190 of 2015 on the file of 1st Addl. District Judge, Ongole, Prakasam Dist. and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 pleased to GRANT STAY of all further proceedings EA ..../2025 in E.P. No. 303/2019 in O.S.No. 190/2015 ON The file of 1 St addi district judge, ongole,prakasam district pending disposal of the Main CRP and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. DWARAKA SAGAR YELLAMRAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. BURLU CHANDRA SEKHAR The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2797/2025 ORDER: The petitioner herein is a third party to the original suit, whereas, the 1st respondent herein is the decree holder (DHR) and the 2nd respondent herein is the judgment debtor (JDR) in E.P.No.303 of 2015 in O.S.No.190 of 2015. 2. It is submitted that the 2nd respondent and his daughter purchased the petition schedule property jointly under a registered sale deed dated 28.02.2013 vide registered document No.1344/2013 at SRO Ongole and the 2nd respondent is having half share out of the petition schedule property. The 2nd respondent offered to sell his half share out of the petition schedule property for his family necessities to the petitioner and the petitioner accepted the same. The 2nd respondent's half share price was fixed at Rs.17,00,000/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs only) as a bill contract. The petitioner paid Rs.16,50,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs Fifty thousand only) by way of cash to the 2nd respondent towards advance of sale consideration on 05.04.2013 and on the same day the 2nd respondent executed an agreement of sale in favour of the petitioner. 3. As per terms of the agreement of sale dated 05.04.2013, there is no limitation for obtaining registered sale deed. The 2nd respondent agreed to register the sale deed whenever the petitioner demands for the same. Later, 4 the petitioner demanded the 2nd respondent to execute proper registered sale deed for a number of times. The petitioner is ready and willing to perform his part of contract, but the 2nd respondent did not come forward to do so and postponing the same on one ground or the other, without any valid reasons. 4. From the beginning, the petitioner is always ready and willing to pay the balance of sale consideration of Rs.50,000/- and is ready and willing to perform his part of contract under the agreement of sale dated 05.04.2013. The 2nd respondent is bound to execute the regular registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner by receiving balance of sale consideration as per the terms of agreement of sale dated 05.04.2013. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner issued legal notice to the 2nd respondent dated 10.09.2025, with regard to the agreement of sale dated 05.04.2013. In spite of receiving the same, the 2nd respondent did not choose to respond. 5. It is further submitted that recently the petitioner came to know that the 1st respondent/ DHR herein filed a suit against the 2nd respondent/ JDR basing on the promissory note executed by the 2nd respondent and got attached the EP schedule property. The EP schedule property was purchased by the petitioner from the 2nd respondent/ JDR and his daughter vide agreement of sale dated 05.04.2013. As per the said agreement of sale, the petitioner is having right and interest over the schedule property and the 2nd respondent/JDR in collusion with the 1st respondent / DHR might have got filed 5 the suit and obtained attachment orders and thereby filing the present EP to sell away the property to gain illegal and cause loss to the petitioner by suppressing the real facts. The 2nd respondent / JDR, has no right, interest over the schedule property and so the attachment is void under law. 6. The Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the order passed by the Court below in the claim petition filed under Order 21 Rule 58 and 151 C.P.C. dated 07.10.2025. 7. For sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were referred in the revision petition. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that there is no specific time limit for execution of the sale deed as per the terms of the agreement of sale. As such, the petitioner issued legal notice to the 2nd respondent on 06.10.2025, demanding the execution of the sale deed. 9. It is further submitted that he filed claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 and 151 of C.P.C., claiming to release the E.P. schedule property from attachment and for the costs petition. The same is pending consideration before the court below and the petitioner has also filed another claim petition seeking interim stay of operation of the execution proceedings till the disposal of the claim petition. 10. It is further submitted that, without considering the rights of the claim petitioner over the E.P. scheduled attached property, his claim petition was 6 returned as the same cannot be entertained as per the proviso of Rule 58A of the Order 21 C.P.C. 11. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. 12. For determination of the issue before the Court, it is proper on part of this Court to extract Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C. and also proviso to Rule 58 Order 21 C.P.C. “58. Adjudication of claims to or objections to attachment of, property.—(1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions herein contained: Provided that no such, claim or objection shall be entertained— (a) where, before the claim is preferred or objection is made, the property attached has already been sold; or (b) where the Court considers that the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. (2) All questions (including questions relating to right, title or interest in the property attached) arising between the parties to a proceeding or their representatives under this rule and relevant to the adjudication of the claim or objection, shall be determined by the Court dealing with the claim or objection and not by a separate suit. (3) Upon the determination of the questions referred to in sub-rule (2), the Court shall, in accordance with such determination,— (a) allow the claim or objection and release the property from attachment either wholly or to such extent as it thinks fit; or (b) disallow the claim or objection; or (c) continue the attachment subject to any mortgage, charge or other interest in favour of any person; or (d) pass such order as in the circumstances of the case it deems fit. (4) Where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. (5) Where a claim or an objection is preferred and the Court, under the proviso to sub-rule (I), refuses to entertain it, the party against whom such order is made may institute a suit to establish the right which he claims to the property in dispute; but, subject to the result of suchsuit, if 7 any, an order so refusing to entertain the claim or objection shall be conclusive.” 13. The fact remains that the claim petitioner entered into an agreement of sale dated 05.04.2013 as per Article 54 of the schedule to the Limitation Act, the limitation for agreement of sale is three (03) years from the date of agreement or as per the terms of the agreement. The limitation starts from the enforcement of agreement of sale is from the date of agreement three (03) years. 14. The 2nd limb of the Article 54 contemplates the limitation should be in accordance with the terms of the agreement of sale or from the date of payment and refusal of the registration. Therefore, the petitioner herein remained silent for years together, without there being any limitation on the ground that there is no time period as per the terms of the agreement and there is no payment and refusal on part of the petitioner and the 2nd respondent herein, which is contrary to the object of provisions of the Limitation Act and also Article 14 of the Schedule of the Act. Hence, the claim of the petitioner certainly is not legally enforceable and is time barred. Moreover, the EP schedule property was attached in a suit filed a decade ago and which was decreed in favour of the 1st respondent and EP was also filed 1½ year ago, now, the attached property is already auctioned and confirmed. At the stage after confirmation of sale, the present claim petition is filed. 8 15. The Court below has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner herein on the ground that as per the Proviso of Rule 58 of Order 21 C.P.C., the claim petition shall not be entertained after the attached property has been sold. 16. It is further observed that the payment of the petitioner for execution of the sale deed is also on 16.10.2025, pursuant to the legal notice, which clearly established the present claim petition is an afterthought. On 16.10.2025, filing the claim petition indicates that the intention of the petitioner to drag the matter without confirmation of the sale. Therefore, in view of the reasons stated above, the present Civil Revision Petition lacks merit and the orders passed by the Court below dated 07.10.2025 does not warrants any interference by this Court. 17. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed. ________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 18.11.2025 SCH 9 260 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2797 of 2025 18.11.2025 SCH