THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.45 of 2009 Date: 23-10-2009 Between Smt. Immadi Dhana Lakshmi … Petitioner/Claim Petitioner and 1. Smt. K.Sugunavathi and another … Respondents/Petitioners/Plaintiffs 3. I.H.Koteswara Rao … Respondent/Respondent/Defendant THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.45 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri Kowturu Vinaya Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Sreenivasa Rao Velivela, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order, dated 11-12-2008, in C.F.No.6630 of 2008, passed by the Chairman, Lok Adalat cum Junior Civil Judge, Tiruvuru, Krishna district in closing the petition filed by the petitioner therein, who is the wife of the judgment-debtor, observing that since the matter is pending before regular Court, it is not just and proper to entertain the petition under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. 3. The petitioner herein is the claim petitioner, respondents 1 and 2 are the plaintiffs/decree-holders and respondent No.3 is the defendant/judgment-debtor in the suit before the Lok Adalat. 4. Perused the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat. It appears that the petitioner is a third party to the suit and execution proceedings as well. At the stage when the E.P. proceedings were initiated by the decree-holders, the claim petitioner instead of moving the Court of execution under Order XXI, Rule 58 of CPC and make a claim independently, made a representation before the Lok Adalat seeking interference. The said application has been closed by the Lok Adalat in view of the fact that no application was made before the executing Court before approaching the Lok Adalat. Obviously, law does not permit the course of action chosen by the claim petitioner. 5. For the foregoing, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. 6. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. The interim stay, in consequence, stands vacated. 7. Needless to mention that the claim petitioner is at liberty to approach the executing Court under Order XXI, Rule 58 of CPC, if permissible under law. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 23rd October, 2009. Note:- Issue C.C. in one week. (B/o) Ak