THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 5519 of 2008 Date : 07.09.2009 Between: m.Rama Devi …Petitioner And K.Anuradha and another …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr. K.G.Krishna Murthy Counsel for the respondent : N.Aswartha Narayana THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5519 OF 2008 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2008 in E.A.No.154 of 2008 in E.A.No.506 of 2007 in E.P.No.75 of 2007 in O.S.No.134 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur. The Revision petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.134 of 2006 which was decreed as prayed for. Pursuant thereto, E.P.No.75 of 2007 was filed for execution of the decree and in the execution proceedings the 1st respondent herein filed E.A.No.506 of 2007 under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. claiming title to the mortgaged property. The Revision petitioner/plaintiff filed E.A.No.154 of 2008 under Section 151 of C.P.C. with a prayer to frame a preliminary point for consideration with regard to maintainability of E.A.No.506 of 2007 contending that the claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. was not maintainable in execution of a mortgage decree where there was no attachment of the property in question. The said petition was closed by the Court below by order dated 27.11.2008 observing that since the claim petition was posted for enquiry, there was no necessity to decide the maintainability of the said petition at that stage and accordingly directing both the parties to get ready for disposal of the claim petition. The said order is under challenge in this Civil Revision Petition by the plaintiff/decree- holder. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material on record. O.S.No.134 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Anantapur was filed for recovery of money on a simple mortgage deed executed by the defendant agreeing to repay the amount with interest at 24% per annum. The defendant was set ex parte and the suit was decreed on 20.12.2006 granting three (3) months time for redemption. Since the amount was not paid within the period of redemption, E.P.No.75 of 2007 was filed for sale of the mortgaged property. The 1st respondent herein filed I.A.No.506 of 2007 under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. claiming title to the mortgaged property. The Revision petitioner/decree-holder while raising an objection as to the maintainability of the claim petition on the ground that the claim petition cannot be maintained in the absence of prior attachment of the property, filed E.A.No.154 of 2008 to decide the said question as a preliminary issue. The Court below declined to consider the said request mainly on the ground that the claim petition itself has been posted for enquiry and therefore there is no need to decide the question of maintainability as a preliminary issue. The discretion exercised by the Court below cannot be termed as arbitrary or perverse. It is not as if the objection raised by the decree- holder as to the maintainability of the claim petition is rejected, but the Court below thought it fit to decide the said issue while hearing the claim petition which is already posted for enquiry. Such discretionary order warrants no interference by this Court in exercise of Revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of C.P.C. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to dispose of E.A.No.506 of 2007, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 07.09.2009 gbs