IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTYFOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition Nos.4092 and 4093 of 2010 C.R.P.No.4092 of 2010 Between: M/s. Agri Gold Foods & Farms Products Ltd., Represented by its authorized signatory Mr. K. Rambabu .. Petitioner AND C. Subhasir @ M. Subhasri .. Respondent C.R.P.No.4093 of 2010 Between: M/s. Agri Gold Foods & Farms Products Ltd., Represented by its authorized signatory Mr. K. Rambabu .. Petitioner AND C. Subhasir @ M. Subhasri .. Respondent COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions are between the same parties involving identical questions arising out of the execution proceedings taken by the respondent in both the Civil Revision Petitions against the property claimed by the revision petitioner through applications under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Hence, these Civil Revision Petitions are being disposed of by this common order. In both the cases, the revision petitioner applied for stay of further proceedings in E.P.No.1 of 2009 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, Ranga Reddy District, and the applications were dismissed by the Executing Court by a common order dated 20- 08-2010. The Executing Court, with reference to the claim by the revision petitioner that the property being brought to sale belongs to it and the claim of the decree holder that the property belongs to her husband/ judgment debtor, noted that the sale notice was ordered to the judgment debtor after filing of sale papers and encumbrance certificate by the decree holder at which stage the claim petitions were filed. The Executing Court also noted that the judgment debtor did not enter appearance in the execution proceedings and as the title claimed by the third party has to be enquired in detail and as the execution petition has to travel a long way before it comes to the stage of sale, the claimant will not sustain any loss by proceeding with the execution proceedings, more so, when his possession is undisturbed. The stay of the execution petition will on the other hand cause loss to the decree holder and hence, the Executing Court dismissed both the stay petitions. The claimant challenged the said orders in these revision petitions contending that proceeding with the execution petition pending the claim petition will cause great hardship and perpetual fear to the claimant company and considerations of sympathy towards the decree holder claiming maintenance cannot have an adverse impact on the interest of the claimant company and its workers. Hence, the claimant desired the impugned order to be reversed. Heard Sri P. Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri Nemalikanti Lakshminarayana, learned counsel for the respondent in both the revision petitions. The point for consideration is in what manner the rights and interests of both parties to the revision petitions have to be safeguarded? Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for adjudication of claims to, or objections to, attachment of property in execution and Order XXI Rule 59 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for an order by the Court postponing the sale pending adjudication of the claim or objection or permitting the sale of property but not the confirmation of such sale. The specific language of Order XXI Rule 59 of the Code of Civil Procedure thus shows that what has been enabled by the said rule is either postponing of sale or postponing of confirmation of sale pending adjudication into a claim but not stay of proceedings in the execution itself till the adjudication of the claim. The execution petition in question herein is at the stage of service of sale notice by the time of the impugned orders and much further steps have to be gone through before the attached property is actually brought to sale or is actually sold and as opined by the Executing Court, the process of execution need not be stalled in the meanwhile before a decision in the claim petitions. The claimant can take every step to proceed with the enquiry into the claim petitions by producing any oral or documentary evidence, which he wishes to produce in both the claim petitions and the Executing Court can take adequate steps to have the matter enquired into and decided on merits before the execution petition reaches the stage of sale. If a reasonable time limit is fixed for the Executing court to do so and if it is directed that any sale of attached property may be postponed till the determination of claim petitions on merits if the execution petition reaches the stage of sale in the meanwhile, the same would sub-serve the interests of justice and safe guard the interests of both parties. Therefore, the Family Court, Ranga Reddy District at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, is directed to dispose of E.A.No.20 of 2010 on its file on merits after giving every reasonable opportunity to both parties to place their oral or documentary evidence before the Court as they desire within two months from the date of communication of this order and if E.P.No.1 of 2009 reaches the stage of sale of the attached property in the meanwhile, the Executing Court may postpone such sale pending the final adjudication of the claim petitions within the time specified. The Civil Revision Petitions are ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24-11-2010 Ksn