HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1916 and 1917 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Since these two Revisions arise out of the same proceedings and the parties are same, they are heard together and being disposed of by a common order. In C.R.P.No.1917 of 2010 the petitioner is the claimant who filed the Revision under Section 115 C.P.C. inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 26.10.2009, passed by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application in E.A.No.67 of 2009 in E.P.No.8 of 2009 purportedly filed under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to declare him as owner of the articles mentioned in the schedule property. The said application was dismissed with one line order, which reads as follows: - “On perusal of records there is no attachment effected. Hence, this petition is closed as not maintainable.” The other C.R.P.No.1916 of 2010 is filed by the very same petitioner assailing the correctness of the order, dated 26.10.2009, passed by the II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the application in E.A.No.68 of 2009 in E.P.No.8 of 2009 where he sought to stay all further proceedings in the said E.P. pending on its file. The said application was closed on the ground that E.A.No.67 of 2009 is closed. Hence, these two Revisions. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the relevant material on record, it is seen that the proceedings are initiated by the petitioner, who is a third party claimant, in respect of the suit schedule properties by filing an application under Order 21 Rule 58 read with Section 151 C.P.C., claiming that those articles belong to him and it could not be proceeded against. The Court below without holding any enquiry as mandatorily required under the aforesaid provisions, dismissed the application as not maintainable only on the ground that there is no attachment. It is to be seen that for adjudicating an application filed under Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C., it is not necessary that the property which is claimed by the third party need to be attached. As long as it is a fact that the properties can be proceeded, a claim petition can as well be filed and necessarily the same has to be enquired into by giving due notice and opportunity to both the parties and then only it can be disposed of on merits and not otherwise. In view of the same, both the Revisions are allowed and the orders impugned in both the Revisions are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal on merits, in accordance with law, after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to both the parties. It is also left open for the Court below to pass appropriate fresh orders as to the stay. It is needless to mention that as long as such claim petitions are pending necessarily the execution proceedings has to be stayed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO 07th April 2011 DR