THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2275 OF 2010 Dated: 28.09.2010 Between: G.Manohar and another ..... PETITIONERS AND G.Sreeramulu and another .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2275 OF 2010 ORDER : The 2nd respondent herein filed O.S.No.114 of 2003 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Penukonda for recovery of money due from the 1st respondent herein. The suit was decreed by judgment dated 06.04.2005. Pursuant thereto, the 2nd respondent filed E.P.No.15 of 2006 in O.S.No.114 of 2003 for attachment and sale of the schedule property for realisation of the E.P. amount. The petitioners herein, who claim to be the children of the 1st respondent/J.D.R., filed E.A.No.7 of 2008 under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. claiming a share in the schedule property and seeking to raise the attachment to the extent of their share. While keeping the said application pending, the Court below made an order dated 16.04.2010, in E.P.No.15 of 2006 as under: “Heard both sides. The claimants rights will be decided at the time of sale. Therefore, the respondents objections are overruled for the present. For settlement of terms by 21.04.2010.” Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed contending inter alia that the Court below was not justified in directing sale of the schedule property without adjudicating the claim made by the petitioners herein. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the respondents. The law is well settled that whenever a claim petition is made, the executing Court is bound to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions of Sub-Rules 2 to 5 of Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. Even where the property attached had already been advertised for sale, Order 21 Rule 59 of C.P.C. provides that the sale shall not be confirmed. In the light of the mandatory provisions of Order 21 Rules 58 and 59 of C.P.C., I am of the opinion that the Court below was not justified in directing sale while keeping the claim petition preferred by the petitioners pending. Accordingly, the order dated 16.04.2010 as well as the subsequent order dated 21.04.2010 are hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to consider and dispose of E.A.No.7 of 2008 following due process of law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order and then to proceed with E.P.No.15 of 2006. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.09.2010 Ivd