THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3502 of 2009 Dated:19.11.2009 Between: The State Trading Corporation of India Limited. ….Petitioner And M/s.Gowthami Steels Limited, And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3502 of 2009 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice V.V.S.Rao) The State Trading Corporation of India Limited, the petitioner herein, filed I.A.No.126 of 2007 in O.S.No.253 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam, to raise attachment made by the said Court in I.A.No.1810 of 2006, by reason of which, 44,048 MT of Steam/Thermal Coal of Indonesian Origin belonging to second respondent was attached at the instance of the plaintiff, first respondent herein. First respondent instituted the suit for recovery of about rupees one crore. In their application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), they sought attachment of 10,000 tons of Steam Coal lying in the warehouse of M/s.Shravan Shipping Services Private Limited, if the second respondent fails to furnish security for the suit amount of Rs.1,00,15,699/-. The same was opposed. On considering the merits, the Court of IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam, passed orders on 17.05.2008 making the attachment made on 26.12.2006 absolute subject to the first charge of State Trading Corporation which has hypothecation rights over the property. Later, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.126 of 2007 under Order XXXVIII Rule 9 of CPC claiming to attach property and also claiming first charge. The same having been dismissed by the impugned order, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. At the stage of preliminary hearing itself learned Counsel for the first respondent while relying on the decision of this Court in Yada Laxmi v M/s.Sona Finance Corporation, Sircilla[1] submits that when the claim petition under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 of CPC is filed the same has to be adjudicated as if it is a claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC and any adverse order is appealable and a review would not lie. Rule 8 of Order XXXVIII of CPC provides that where any claim is preferred to a property attached before judgment, such claim should be adjudicated upon in a manner provided for the adjudication of claims to property attached in execution of a decree for the payment of money. Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC which contains the procedure for adjudication of claims or objections to attachment of property provides in sub rule (2) that if a claim or objection is adjudicated the order made thereon shall be decree and appealable. Therefore, a revision would not lie. To the same effect is the decision of this Court in Yada Laxmi (supra). This Court after relying on the decision of the Full Bench in P.Masthan Reddy v Nellore Finance Corporation[2] and Gurram Seetharam Reddy v Gunti Yashoda[3] held that a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be maintained against an order under Rule 8 of Order XXXVIII of CPC. We are in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. In the result, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) ________________ (B.N.RAO NALLA, J) 19.11.2009 vs [1] 2006 (3) LS 131 [2] 1993 (2) ALT 97 (FB) [3] 2004 (6) ALD 175