THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NOs. 500 & 666 of 2005 Date of order: 3.8.2010 Between: CRP NO. 500 OF 2005 Mopidevi Narasmha Rao …Petitioner and Karem Raja Rao (died) and others ..Respondents and CRP NO. 666 OF 2005 Mopidevi Narasmha Rao …Petitioner and Karem Mikhael and another ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P.NOs. 500 & 666 of 2005 COMMON ORDER: These two revision petitions are at the instance of the decree holder who is aggrieved by the orders of the lower appellate court allowing two separate claim petitions filed by each of the claim petitioners. While CRP No. 500 of 2005 is directed against CMA No. 20 of 1999 in which the order of the executing court in EA No. 449 of 1998 was reversed. Similarly CRP No. 666 of 2005 is directed against the identical order in CMA No. 19 of 1999 reversing the order of the executing court in EA No. 450 of 1998. Both the said applications i.e., EA Nos. 449 and 450 of 1998 were in the nature of claim petitions objecting to the attachment of the property in question during the execution of the decree obtained by the revision petitioner. The said claim petitions were dismissed and the CMAs were allowed by the lower appellate Court. CRP No. 500 of 2005 was listed for hearing and when it was mentioned that another CRP No. 666 of 2005 is also pending involving identical question, the said CRP No. 666 of 2005 was called for and taken on board. Both the revision petitions were heard and are being disposed of by this common order. It is not necessary to go into the factual aspects of the matter, inasmuch as the order passed in claim petition has a force of a decree and can only be questioned by way of regular appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code. The CMAs are, therefore, not maintainable. This legal position is settled by a Full Bench of this Court in Gurram Seetaram Reddy Vs. Smt. Gunti Yashoda and another [1]. Even at the time of admission of CRP No. 500 of 2005, this Court, on 8.8.2005, has recorded the said opinion and suspended the impugned order. In the circumstances, therefore, the impugned orders of the lower appellate Court in CMA Nos. 19 and 20 of 1999 which are subject matter of these two revision petitions are liable to be declared without jurisdiction and required to be set aside on that ground itself. Accordingly the revision petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set aside. However, since the respondents-claim petitioners in either of the revision petitions have been prosecuting the proceedings before the lower appellate Court including these revision petitions all these days, it would be just and proper to permit the respondents-claim petitioners to approach the appropriate appellate court for filing a regular appeal against the impugned orders of the executing court dismissing their claim petitions, provided the respondents-claim petitioners file such appeals within three weeks from today. No order as to costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 3.8.2010 NB: CC of order be furnished in one week. /BO/ KR [1] 2004 (6) ALT 111 (FB)