IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5798 OF 2009 Between:- Gullipalli Appalanaidu …Petitioners A n d Gullipalli Sanjeeva Naidu …Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.5798 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 16-09-2009 in E.P.No.150 of 2002 in O.S.No.118 of 2002, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Bobbili, wherein the plea of the petitioner/DHr for confirmation of sale to an extent of undivided 5/16th share in the EP schedule property, was rejected. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondent/JDr, though served with notice. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner is decree holder. He claims to have purchased the EP schedule property in auction sale conducted on 27-10-2003. The sale was awaiting confirmation. Meanwhile, E.A.No.3 of 2003 claim application was filed by the third parties. The said EA was allowed on 23-06-2004. The appeal filed by the JDr in A.S.No.21 of 2004 was also dismissed on 21-07-2005. It is stated that the shares are not determined in the claim application. The DHr, therefore, seeks confirmation of sale in respect of undivided 5/16th share in the EP schedule property, which was subject matter of the auction sale. 4. Instead of filing a regular application, seeking appropriate relief, the DHr filed a memo on which the impugned order was passed. The claimants, whose claim application E.A.No.3 of 2003 was allowed, are not made parties to the impugned proceedings. In the present revision, the third party/claimants are also not impleaded. The petitioner/DHr seeks confirmation of sale in respect of undivided 5/16th share. The claimants, who are claiming the remaining undivided 11/16th share, are also proper and necessary parties to the proceedings, as their claim was upheld by the Court. The executing court ought not to have entertained the memo and passed orders thereon. The DHr ought to have filed a regular application impleading proper and necessary parties before seeking any relief in respect the EP schedule property, which was subject matter of the auction sale. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner seeks liberty to file a regular application before the executing court. 5. In the circumstances, without going into merits of the case, the impugned order passed on a memo filed by the petitioner/DHr is held not sustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. The petitioner/DHr is at liberty to file a regular application for seeking any relief in respect of the subject matter of the auction sale. 6. The civil revision petition is disposed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th August, 2010 Lrkm.