AP HIGH COURT HELD THAT
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — O.21 Rr.26, 29 & 58 — Execution proceedings — Auction sale — Claim petition by coparceners seeking stay of further execution proceedings — Return of unnumbered application by Executing Court on maintainability objections — Revision under Art.227 — Maintainability — Held, when claim application was only returned with objections and time granted for resubmission, proper course for claimants was to cure defects and resubmit application — However, considering urgency arising from proposed confirmation of auction sale and delivery of possession, High Court justified in issuing protective directions pending consideration of claim petition.
(Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, O.21 Rr.26, 29 & 58 — Constitution of India, Art.227)
Execution proceedings — Partition suit by coparceners — Subject property in execution also forming subject matter of subsequent partition suit — Protective jurisdiction of High Court — Direction issued restraining confirmation of sale and delivery of possession pending adjudication of claim petition.
Facts :
Petitioners, claiming to be coparceners of judgment-debtor family, instituted partition suit in O.S.No.30 of 2022 in respect of property which was also subject matter of E.P.No.10 of 2015 arising out of O.S.No.22 of 2010. Upon coming to know of execution proceedings and auction sale, petitioners filed unnumbered claim applications under Order XXI Rules 26 and 29 read with Section 151 CPC seeking stay of further execution proceedings. Executing Court returned applications by docket order dated 29.04.2026 raising objections relating to maintainability, correctness of cause title and impleadment of parties, while granting seven days’ time for resubmission. Without resubmitting applications, petitioners approached High Court under Article 227 on ground of urgency as auction sale conducted on 02.03.2026 was posted for confirmation. Paras 2 and 3.
Held :
Since claim applications were merely returned with objections and time was granted for compliance, petitioners were entitled to resubmit applications after curing defects and same were required to be considered by Court below on merits. Paras 3 and 4.
Considering urgency expressed and pendency of proposed confirmation of auction sale, High Court directed petitioners to resubmit applications by complying with objections and further directed Executing Court to receive and decide same expeditiously after hearing both parties. Para 4.
Till disposal of claim petition, Executing Court was directed not to proceed with delivery of possession or confirmation of auction sale. Court below was further directed to dispose of claim petition within three months, failing which it would be at liberty to proceed further with execution proceedings in accordance with law. Para 4.
