IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2852 of 2010 BETWEEN Kotagiri Sreekanth and another. ... PETITIONERS AND Bashetty Laxman. ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioners : MR. M. RAJAMALLA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR. Y.S. YELLANAND GUPTA The Court made the following: ORDER: Petitioners, who are third party claimants, have filed a claim petition being EA.No.66 of 2010 opposing the execution of the decree taken out by the respondent in EP.No.57 of 2009 in O.S.No.7 of 2006 before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. 2. It appears that the decree holder has obtained an attachment of the property belonging to the judgment debtor on 04.05.2006 and the same was effected on 10.05.2006. The claim petitioners contend that they have purchased a part of the built-up from the said property, which is subject matter of attachment and according to them, they had entered into an agreement of sale with his vendor/judgment debtor on 23.02.2006 and later, a registered sale deed dated 16.03.2007 was executed in their favour. The claim petitioners, therefore, oppose the execution on the basis of the aforesaid documents. 3. While the aforesaid claim petition is under enquiry, the petitioners filed the present application E.A.No.84 of 2010 seeking the Court to summon the Manager of Nizamabad branch of the Bank of India, Rashtrapathi Road, Nizamabad or his authorized representative to produce and depose regarding the file pertaining to the petitioners’ loan account to the said property, as the aforesaid purchase of the built-up area is alleged to be on the basis of the loan granted by the said bank. The said application was vehemently opposed by the decree holder on the ground that a copy of the sale deed, which is already produced, does not refer to an agreement of sale at all and as such, there is no need to produce any further documents nor it is necessary to summon the Manager of the bank and that the present application is only filed to drag on the hearing in the claim petition. Under the impugned order, the Court below has rejected the said application by doubting the bonafides of the petitioners. Hence, this revision. 4. Heard both the counsel appearing on either side. 5. It cannot be denied that in a claim petition, the claim petitioner is required to establish his right, title and interest and the claim petition has to be tried and decided like a suit. The claim petitioners are, therefore, in a position of plaintiffs, who want to produce the documents in support of their case. It is not denied by the decree holder that the petitioners’ documents are subject matter of the loan transaction and originals thereof are with the bank. I am also not able to see any denial on the part of the decree holder regarding specific averment of the petitioners in para 3 of their claim petition that they had entered into an agreement of sale with their vendor on 23.02.2006. It may be that the said agreement of sale is not referred to in the sale deed executed by and between the parties subsequently. However, that by itself is not decisive of existence of the agreement of sale, as alleged by the claim petitioners. In view of the fact that the enquiry in the claim petition requires either of the parties to have adequate opportunity to establish their claim, rejection of the petitioners’ application would amount to shutting out the petitioners from producing documentary evidence in support of their case, which according to them is relevant. It is, therefore, not for the respondent/decree holder to contend on the sufficiency of evidence to be lead by the claim petitioners. 6. The impugned order, if allowed to stand, would amount to shutting out the petitioners from leading evidence in support of their claim petition and as such, the same cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The application EA.No.84 of 2010 filed by the petitioners shall stand allowed as prayed for. The executing Court shall issue appropriate summons as prayed for in the said application and shall proceed with the claim petition enquiry and decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil revision petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J February 18, 2011 DSK