IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1779 of 2011 Between: Pyla Ramesh … Petitioner And R.Sesha Rao and others … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1779 of 2011 O R D E R: - Petitioner/third party to the E.P.proceedings, filed E.A. under Section 151 C.P.C. for passing appropriate orders restraining respondent No.3/ auction purchaser from proceeding further and taking possession of the property in pursuance of the sale certificate and permitting him to break open the lock with the police aid. Respondent No.1/decree holder filed E.P.No.113 of 2007 for due execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.647 of 2006 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, for recovery of the decretal amount, in which the residential house to an extent of 100 square yards bearing D.No.18-12-4, Revenue Ward No.8, Kedareswara peta, 3rd line, Vijayawada, was auctioned in favour of respondent No.3 on condition to clear off the mortgage loan with the I.C.I.C.I. Bank, Vijayawada availed by respondent No.2/judgment debtor. The sale certificate was also issued in favour of respondent No.3 on 08.06.2009. Thereafter, respondent No.3 filed E.A.No.95 of 2011 on 21.02.2010 under Rule 95 for delivery warrant. To execute the delivery warrant in the E.P., the Court amin came to the schedule property on 25.02.2011 for evicting the petitioner from the schedule property. On coming to know of the same, the petitioner filed O.S.No.287 of 2011 before the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada for partition of the schedule property and to allot 1/12th share and for consequential relief to set aside the sale certificate, dated 07.12.2010, passed in E.A.No.520 of 2010 in E.P.No.113 of 2007, by impleading all the respondents. Therefore, any delivery of the schedule property pending adjudication of the suit, will cause irreparable loss. Hence, he filed the impugned E.A. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/auction purchaser also brought to the notice of this court that I.A.Nos.299 and 300 of 2011 in O.S.No.287 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction restraining defendant Nos.13 and 14 i.e., respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein, from interfering with the possession and restraining respondent No.14 i.e., the auction purchaser for proceeding further in pursuance of the sale certificate, were dismissed by a comprehensive order by the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, on 28.04.2011. Since the petitioner has not filed any claim petition claiming any right over the schedule property to adjudicate in the E.P., mere filing an application for staying the proceedings under Section 151 CPC, as rightly held by the court below, is not sustainable under law. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernible with the order passed by the court below. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J 05-08-2011 lmv HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1779 of 2011 Dt: 05-08-2011 lmv