THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY A.S.No.550 of 2007 ORDER: The first respondent filed O.S.No.25 of 1999 against respondents 2 and 3 for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,07,748/-. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, the first respondent filed E.P.No.64 of 2003. An item of immovable property was attached and thereafter, brought to sale. The fourth respondent emerged as the highest bidder for a sum of Rs.3,54,000/-. Before the sale was confirmed, the petitioner herein filed E.A.No.227 of 2004 under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. She pleaded that the property was settled in her favour under a document, dated 23.07.1994. The first respondent filed a counter- affidavit opposing the application. Through its order, dated 22.11.2004, the trial Court dismissed the E.A. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri D.Govardhana Chary, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Venkateswara Rao Gudapati, learned counsel for the fourth respondent. There is no response from respondents 1 to 3. The first respondent obtained a decree against respondents 2 and 3. Since the decree was not satisfied, an item of immovable property was brought to sale. The fourth respondent emerged as the highest bidder. The appellant is the daughter of the third respondent. She filed E.A.No.227 of 2004 under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C. makes it amply clear that an application filed under that provision shall be tried as though it is a suit. This naturally requires the executing Court to frame issues or at least points, for its consideration and permit the parties to adduce evidence. In case the parties have not chosen to adduce evidence, an observation to that effect must be made. In the instant case, no issues or points were framed by the executing Court. Neither there is an appendix of evidence nor any statement to the effect that the parties have reported no evidence. The executing Court gave a disposal to the E.A. as though it is an ordinary application for interlocutory relief. Such an approach cannot be countenanced. When the law requires that the application must be decided as though it is a suit, the executing Court ought to have ensured that all the steps that are applicable to a suit, are meticulously to be followed. On this short ground, the appeal is allowed and the order under appeal is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial Court for fresh consideration and disposal This Court granted interim stay on 09.10.2007, on condition that the appellant deposits the entire decretal amount and 5% of the amount that is fetched in the auction. The condition is said to have been complied with. It is directed that the amount deposited by the appellant on the one hand, and the fourth respondent on the other, shall be kept in separate fixed deposits. The manner in which the amount shall be paid or disbursed shall depend upon the outcome of the application. The executing Court is directed to dispose of the application, as early as possible, and not later than three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Dt:02.09.2009 kdl