HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.911 OF 2010 Dt.1.4.2010 Between: R.Chandraiah ..Petitioner And K.Jayaramaiah and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH C.R.P.NO.911 OF 2010 ORDER: This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in issuing notice in E.A.No.22 of 2010 in E.A.No.96 of 2008 in E.P.No.215 of 2005 in O.S.No.942 of 1999 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Chittoor. It is stated that the petitioner filed a claim petition in E.A.No.96 of 2008 in E.P.No.215 of 2005 seeking to set aside the sale deed dated 9.6.2008. The perusal of the claim petition shows that the said petition was filed under Order 21, Rule 90 C.P.C. Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C deals with an application to set aside the sale on ground of irregularity or fraud. The petitioner being not a party to the suit is not entitled to file the said application. The petitioner being a third party, however, independently claims the right and title over the suit schedule property, it is open for him to file claim petition under Order 21, Rule 58 C.P.C., which has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions under Order 21, Rules 99 to 102 C.P.C. It appears that the petitioner filed E.A.No.12 of 2009 for amendment of the section of law and the same is pending. Thereafter, E.A.No.96 of 2008 was itself dismissed for default on 20.1.2010. To set aside the said dismissal order, he filed E.A.No.22 of 2010 on 11.2.2010 seeking for restoration of E.A.No.96 of 2008. It is stated that notice was ordered in the said E.A.No.22 of 2010. Against which, this civil revision petition is filed. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the claim petition itself is not maintainable under Order 21 Rule 90 C.P.C., and the application seeking for amendment of the provision of law is yet to be considered. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. 1.4.2010 kpr