THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3574 of 2011 DT.25-11-2011 Between: Chilamkuri Sudhakar Babu s/o Venkateswara Rao & another. … Petitioners And Vinnakota Nagabhushanam s/o Nagaiah, Hindu & ors … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Prabhala Rajsekhar Counsel for respondent: Sri The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3574 of 2011 O R D E R: Heard the learned on both sides. The petitioners herein filed a suit in O.S.No.55 of 2001, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla for recovery of mortgage amount. A preliminary decree was passed on 18-9-2007 and final decree was passed on 17-6-2009 in I.A.No.463 of 2008. Thereafter, the petitioners filed E.P.No.8 of 2010 for execution of the decree against the 1st respondent-Judgment debtor for recovery of mortgage amount of Rs.4,50,776/- and costs of Rs.12,452/-. In the said execution petition, the mortgage property was brought to sale and it was scheduled to be held on 13-7-2011, on which date, the respondents 2 to 4 herein, who are the sons of the 1st respondent- Judgment debtor filed an application in E.A.No.312 of 2011 in E.P.No.8 of 2010 under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to raise the attachment and as the executing Court inclined to stop the same, the petitioners herein filed a Memo submitting that it is a mortgage property, in which no claim petition is maintainable and hence the sale cannot be stopped. It is contended that the claim petition is not maintainable and the claim petition filed by the respondents 2 to 4 is designed only to stop the proceedings. However, the executing Court by the impugned order dated 13-7-2011 stopped the same. Aggrieved by the same, this revision is filed. It is stated that the claim petitioners are the sons of the Judgment debtors residing in the very same house and the claim petition is without any material particulars showing that the said mortgage property belongs to a Joint Family Property. It is also stated that the claim petition was designed and filed with a view to delay the matter without there being any merits. It is stated that any claim petition shall be filed containing all the averments as that are required in a suit. If the three sons of the Judgment-Debtor is having share, each one of them will have 1/4th share, but it is stated that they got 1/3rd share and therefore the claim petition is frivolous and without any merits. Having regard to the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court below ought not to have passed the docket order dated 13-7-2011 stopping the sale without assigning any reason. As the claim petition is filed in E.A.No.312 of 2011 without there being any separate application seeking stay, the said impugned order ought not to have been passed in the main claim petition. However, I am not inclined to consider the merits of the case as the impugned order is passed without assigning any reasons. For the foregoing reasons, the revision is allowed. The order dated 13-7-2011 in E.A.No.312 of 2011 in E.P.No.8 of 2010 in O.S.No.55 of 2001, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Court below to consider and pass a fresh reasoned order, particularly, keeping in view the proviso (1) (b) of Rule 58 of Order 21 read with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties. No costs. ______________ V. ESWARAIAH,J Date: 25-11-2011 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3574 of 2011 DT.25-11-2011 GRK