Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Choppavarapu Sachi Devi vs 6 on 21 April, 2026
1
APHC010694882025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF APRIL
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3791/2025
Between:
1. CHOPPAVARAPU SACHI DEVI, W/O. CHANDRA SEKHAR, HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RIO. H. NO. 8-15/B, J.P. COLONY,
PATANCHERU MUNICIPALITY ROAD NO.4, PATANCHERU, MEDAK
, TELANGANA,
...PETITIONER
AND
1. VELLAMSETTY SUBBA RAO, S/O.V.SIVA SANKARA RAO, HINDU,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, OCC AGRICULTURIST, RIO.
KANAPARTHI POST, NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM
DISTRICT, PIN 523180, ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT/D.HR. 2.
2. TELAGANENI VENKATA NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. PAPA RAO,
HINDU,AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC CULTIVATION, RIO.
DASARIVARIPALEM VILLAGE, KANAPARTHI POST,
NAGULUPPALAPADU MANDAL, PRAKASAM DISTRICT, PIN 523180,
...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 this Memorandum of
Civil Revision Petition against the /Non Disposal of Claim Petition in
C.F.R.No.3301 dt.06-10-2025 in E.P.No. 83 of 2022 in O.S. No.114 of 2018
2
on the file of Additional Sub Court at Ongole, Prakasam District which was
filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of Code of Civil Procedure for the following
among other
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. KOTESWARA RAO MUMMANENI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. NAGA PRAVEEN VANKAYALAPATI
3
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
C.R.P.No.3791 of 2025
This Court made the following
ORDER:
The present Civil Revision Petition is filed aggrieved by the non- disposal of Claim Petition in C.F.R.No.3301, dated 06.10.2025 in E.P.No.83 of 2022 in O.S.No.114 of 2018 on the file of Additional Sub Court at Ongole, Prakasam District which was filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC by the petitioner herein.
2. The case of the petitioner succinctly is that the petitioner is the absolute owner of the petition schedule property which is a dry agricultural land owned by her having purchased it under an agreement of sale from the 2nd respondent/J.Dr, who acquired the same from his ancestors. Pursuant to his acquisition, he was issued revenue record in his favour. On 10.10.2014 the 2nd respondent/J.Dr executed a possessory agreement of sale by receiving a total sale consideration of an amount of Rs.13,30,000/- and on the same date the 2nd respondent handover the possession of the same to the petitioner and till date the petitioner herein is in absolute possession of the same by giving it for rent. The petitioner submits that she is a permanent resident of Patancheru of Medak District and she lives there with her family. Whereas the 2nd respondent/vendor of the petition schedule property is none other than petitioner's own younger brother, due to which petitioner thought of no 4 urgency in the registration of the petition schedule property as petitioner holds the possession of that land, also she gave it on rent and she is getting the rents over the petition schedule property and petitioner never demanded her brother/2nd respondent /J.Dr and also she felt that the property is in safe hands as the vendors are none other than her parents and brother lives in the village where the property is situated. When the petitioner herein demanded the 2nd respondent / J.Dr strongly to make registration of the petition schedule property, the 2nd respondent/J.Dr disclosed about the proceedings of the main E.P and attachment of the petitioner's property in E.P.
3. On the other hand, the plaintiff/1st respondent herein filed suit O.S.No.114/2018 before the Court of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ongole and the suit was settled before Lok Adalat Bench on 11.12.2021 agreeing that the 2nd respondent herein/defendant agreed to pay an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the 1st respondent herein/plaintiff towards full and final settlement of suit amount of Rs.5,36,640/-. 1st respondent/plaintiff agreed for the same. Then the 2nd respondent/defendant paid an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st respondent/plaintiff on 11.12.2021 with a condition to pay the remaining amount of Rs.2,90,000/- on or before 31.03.2022, failing which the 1st respondent/plaintiff is at liberty to proceed against the properties of the 2 nd respondent/defendant or against the 2nd respondent/defendant for total denial amount of Rs.5,36,640/-.
5
4. While the matter stood thus, the 1st respondent filed E.P.No.83/2022 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole and the trial Court passed orders on 05.12.2025 as under:
"Both parties are called. DHr is present. JDr is absent. Claim petition is returned with objection. Publication not filed. At request by Sri KSP, issue fresh proclamation for sale on 19.01.2026 on the same settlement of terms mentioned on 30.10.2025. Hence, proclaim and sell on 19.01.2026. For further hearing, call on 27.01.2026."
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the respondents herein are having no manner of right or title towards the petition schedule property and taking the advantage of the petitioner absence in village, the respondents herein colluded together and with an ill intention of grabbing the property, they filed E.P. among them before the Court of law seeking auction of the petition schedule property and when the petitioner herein have no knowledge about all these acts of the respondents, the petitioner herein filed Claim Petition C.F.R.No.3301, dated 06.10.2025 in E.P.No.83/2022 in O.S.No.114 of 2018 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge at Ongole and the same is returned with repeated objections even after complied and resubmitted by the petitioner. Therefore, the docket orders under which the claim petition was returned again and again without numbering is contrary to law and also ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and erstwhile Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kancharla Lakshminarayana vs. 6 Mattaparthi Syamala & others 1 and Bobbilineni Raj Kumar vs. Dudala Veera Swamy and another2 respectively.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record.
7. For determination of the merits of the present petition it is appropriate to extract the docket orders as under:
"Claim Petition CHNB EP83/22/OS 114/18 Dt: 31.07.2025 Return:
1. Notice is not given to other side,
2. Survey No. is not mentioned in the Claim Petition
3. Boundaries is not Tallied with EP Schedule, Hence returned, time 7 days Sd/-31/7/25 ASCJ.
Returned: Dt: 25-09-1015 Previous Objections dated 31-7-2025 not complied. Hence returned. Time 7 days Sd/-25/9/25 ASCJ.
Returned: Dt: 15.10.2025 Boundaries is not tallied with E.P. Schedule, notice is not given to other side.
Hence returned. Time 7 days.
Sd/-15/10/25 ASCJ.
Returned: Dt: 05.12.2025 In the neat copy of L.R. Petition
1. The DHR value not mentioned in the Claim Petition.
2. Notice is not given to other side. Hence returned. Time 7 days.
1 (2008) 14 Supreme Court Cases 258 2 2013 SCC OnLine AP 943 7 Sd/-05/12/25 ASCJ."
8. On perusal of the docket orders, the sum and substance of the return of the petition is that: (1) the claim petition does not tally with the E.P. schedule property; and (2) notice has not been served upon the other side, inasmuch as a neat copy of the L.R. petition has not been furnished and the DHR value has not been mentioned in the claim petition. These objections have been newly enumerated only on 05.12.2025.
9. It seems that the two objections were newly invented by the Court below on 05.12.2025. The object of principle of "Audi alteram partem" is should be observed in any dispute between the parties. As such the parties must have been provided fair opportunity to resolve the dispute. The essence of Code of Civil Procedure and principles of natural justice, due process of law and also rule of law evolved upon the principle of Audi alteram partem. Therefore, return of the claim petition again and again on the same grounds even though it was duly explained and complied and resubmitted by the claim petitioner on 12.08.2025 and observed that the 1st respondent refused to take notice. AS far as other objection of boundaries that the boundaries of claim petition and boundaries of the EP petition might be different since the property of the claim petition might be either larger or smaller extent than the EP schedule property. It is settled law that once the party refused to receive the notice, it amounts to deemed service of notice against that party. Instead of doing so, the Court below again and again observing no notice is served 8 against the other side is contrary to law as mentioned above. The other objection that the boundaries of claim petition schedule property is not tallying with EP schedule property, therefore the petition cannot be entertained is also under wrong presumption for the reason that the schedule property at claim petition may be larger extent than EP schedule property or may be smaller extent than EP schedule property. In that regard the Court below cannot expect boundaries of claim petition schedule property and EP schedule property must be tallied. It is also settled law that a claim can be made even against part of EP schedule property. If as long as the claim petitioner is able to prove, he has legally enforced right against the EP schedule property. Therefore, the objections of the Court below are certainly with an intention to discourage the adjudication before completion of execution proceedings. Therefore, the petitioner made out prima facie case and balance of convenience in her favour to the extent of a fair opportunity should be given for adjudication of the claim petition. In view of rulings laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh as extracted hereunder:
In Kancharla Lakshminarayana vs. Mattaparthi Syamala & others (Supra 1) the Hon'ble Apex Court held thus:
"26. It was urged before the High Court that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 58 read with the provisions of Order 22 Rule 101 spells out the duty of the court to adjudicate all the questions relating to the rights of the parties and that the Executing Court had failed to consider the provisions in the proper perspective and it should have decided as to whether the decree between the first and second respondents is a collusive decree merely meant to defeat the right of the appellant herein. The aforementioned proviso to Rule 58 and more particularly Clause (a) thereof was the only provision relied upon by the High 9 Court which is clear from the observations made in internal page 10 of the judgment of the High Court in the following words:
"Clause 5 of Order 21 Rule 58 CPC deals with a situation where the claim or objection under the proviso to sub-rule (1) is refused to be entertained by the court, the party against whom such order is made may dispute, but, subject to the result of such suit, if any, an order so refusing to entertain the claim or objection shall be conclusive. The highest bidder in the auction sale has been declared as the purchaser and that therefore, the proviso to Order 21 Rule 58 CPC is attracted."
We have already shown that this is not the situation in law. The High Court further went on to suggest that a merely Agreement holder could not prevent the right of the auction-purchaser to get the sale confirmed. This statement is also patently incorrect statement in law. We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the High Court and the Trial Court were in utter error in relying on proviso to Clause (a) to Rule 58 of Order XXI CPC. The appeal has, therefore, to succeed. The Executing Court thus shall be obliged to decide the objections raised by the appellant.
In Bobbilineni Raj Kumar vs. Dudala Veera Swamy and another (Supra 2) the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh observed as under:
"8. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision of Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, the application filed by the appellant ought to have been examined by the Court below on its merits but, unfortunately, at the threshold, the said petition was rejected only on the ground that the original will was not filed. In my view, the impugned order rejecting the claim petition completely frustrates the object and purpose of providing for adjudication of such claims under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The order impugned, therefore, is liable to be set aside as it is contrary to Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The Court below, therefore, ought to have kept in mind that the scheme of adjudication of objections of third parties, either under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC or under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, and 99 CPC, is similar where the Executing Court is required to adjudicate upon such claim so as to obviate necessity of such objector to file a separate suit. The multiplicity of proceedings is, therefore, avoided by the aforesaid provisions inserted in the Civil Procedure Code under the Central Act 104 of 1976. As mentioned above, the provision also provides that the Court is free to consider whether such objection or claim is designedly or unnecessarily delayed at the threshold. The present impugned order does not even fall within the said parameters nor there is any adjudication of the appellants objection/claim. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained and, is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. Keeping in view the aforesaid provision of Order 21 Rule 58 CPC, the application filed by the appellant ought to have been examined by the Court below on its merits but, unfortunately, at the threshold, the said petition was rejected only on the ground that the original will was not filed. In my view, the impugned order rejecting the claim petition completely frustrates the object and purpose of providing for adjudication of such claims under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The order impugned, therefore, is liable to be set aside as it is contrary to Order 21 Rule 58 CPC. The Court below, therefore, ought to have kept in mind that the scheme of adjudication of objections of third parties, either under Order 10 21 Rule 58 CPC or under Order 21 Rules 97, 98, and 99 CPC, is similar where the Executing Court is required to adjudicate upon such claim so as to obviate necessity of such objector to file a separate suit. The multiplicity of proceedings is, therefore, avoided by the aforesaid provisions inserted in the Civil Procedure Code under the Central Act 104 of 1976. As mentioned above, the provision also provides that the Court is free to consider whether such objection or claim is designedly or unnecessarily delayed at the threshold. The present impugned order does not even fall within the said parameters nor there is any adjudication of the appellants objection/claim. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained and, is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The Appeal is, therefore, allowed. E.A.(SR).No.3765 of 2012 in E.P.No.88 of 2011 in O.S.No.433 of 2007 filed by the appellant - petitioner shall stand restored and relegated to the Court of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada. The Court below shall number the application, and the same shall be heard and disposed of, in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made above. Since the suit is of the year, 2007, and the E.P. is pending since 2011, it is just and appropriate that E.A.(SR).No.3765 of 2012 be heard and disposed of expeditiously within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order."
10. On perusal of ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh as above, the docket order returning the file of claim petition is erroneous and contrary to law.
11. In view of the reasons stated as above, the present Civil Revision Petition is allowed directing the Court below to adjudicate the claim petition on merits in accordance with Order XXI and Rules made thereunder of CPC. Till the completion of enquiry and finalization of EP, the EP proceedings shall stand as it is from where the proceedings were stayed. However, after completion of the adjudication regarding claim petition the Court below is at liberty to complete the EP proceedings as early as possible. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this CRP shall stand closed.
_________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J DT: 21.04.2026 krk 11 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA 158 C.R.P.No.3791 of 2025 DT: 21.04.2026 krk