IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3033 OF 2009 Between:- Pallamreddy Niranjan Reddy .. Petitioner And Chiramana Ramasubba Reddy .. Respondent ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the order dated 08.05.2009 passed in E.A.No.122 of 2003 in E.P.No.475 of 1999 in O.S.No.352 of 1999 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. It appears, the respondent herein filed the suit O.S.No.352 of 1999 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, against one Mr. Thanjavuru Venkata Seshaiah, who is not made a party to the present E.A., for recovery of money on the foot of a demand promissory note, and the said suit was decreed ex parte on 08.10.1999. Thereafter, on filing of E.P.No.475 of 1999 by the respondent, for execution of the said decree, the petition schedule property was sold by way of auction and the sale in favour of the auction purchaser was also confirmed on 29.06.2001. The auction purchaser had also filed E.A.No.975 of 2002, seeking delivery of possession of the petition schedule property, and obtained delivery warrant on 19.02.2003. Thereafter, the present petitioner, who is a third party to the aforesaid proceedings, claiming to be the owner of the property sold in auction, filed E.A.No.123 of 2003, under Section 47 C.P.C., seeking to declare his right to the said property, and also filed the present E.A., under Order XX1 Rule 26 C.P.C. seeking stay of the operation of the aforesaid order dated 19.02.2003, pending disposal of the claim petition. Respondent resisted the same by filing counter. The Court below, after detailed consideration of the matter, observed that the sale was confirmed in the year 2001; whereas the present application was filed in the year 2003, that the petitioner has not filed any petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C. to claim a share or right in the schedule property during the pendency of the E.P. proceedings, and, as such, the Court below opined that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for, and accordingly, dismissed the present E.A, by the impugned order dated 08.05.2009. Challenging the same, the present civil revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned order and other material made available on record. From a perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that the petitioner has not filed any claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of C.P.C., during the pendency of the E.P. proceedings, claiming a share or right in the property sought to be sold in the auction conducted for execution of the money decree granted in favour of the respondent, but he chose to file a petition under Section 47 C.P.C., that too, after two years of confirmation of sale of schedule property. Such is the situation, the question of staying the proceedings pursuant to the order dated 19.02.2003, whereunder delivery of the schedule property to the auction purchaser was ordered by way of delivery warrant, does not arise. In such circumstances, I am of the opinion that the Court below rightly dismissed the present application and no interference is warranted by this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Civil Revision petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J 14th September, 2009 AMD/IBL