The Andhra Pradesh High Court has dismissed a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) filed against the rejection of a second claim petition under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The Division Bench, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, held that a second application for the same relief is not maintainable when the order rejecting the previous application has not been challenged. Additionally, the Court observed that an unregistered agreement of sale does not attract the protection provided under Section 64(2) of the CPC against attachment of property.
Background of the Case
The case arose from execution proceedings initiated by M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. (Respondent No. 1) to execute an arbitration award dated February 28, 2009, against the judgment debtors (Respondent Nos. 2 and 3). During the execution petition (E.P.No.185 of 2021), the petitioner, Guturi Ranga Ratnam, filed a claim petition (E.A.No.364 of 2024) under Section 47 and Order 21 Rule 58 of the CPC. The petitioner claimed rights over the schedule property based on an agreement of sale allegedly entered into with Respondent No. 2 on October 1, 2021.
The VII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, dismissed E.A.No.364 of 2024 as not maintainable on January 10, 2025. The petitioner did not challenge this order. Instead, the petitioner filed a second application (E.A.No.474 of 2025) under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC seeking the same relief. The Executing Court rejected this second application on July 22, 2025. Challenging this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court with the present Civil Revision Petition.
Arguments of the Petitioner
The counsel for the petitioner, Sri Anasuri Eswar Sai, admitted that the order dated January 10, 2025, rejecting the first petition, was not challenged. However, he argued that a suit for specific performance of contract pursuant to the agreement of sale dated October 1, 2021, had been filed.
Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Vannarakkal Kallalathil Sreedharan v. Chandramaath Balakrishnan [(1990) 3 SCC 291], the counsel contended that “the attachment made after the agreement of sale shall not take away the right of the petitioner.” He further cited Kancherla Lakshminarayana v. Mattaparthi Syamala [(2008) 14 SCC 258] to argue that “an agreement holder can prevent the right of the auction purchaser to get the sale confirmed,” and thus the claim petition should have been held maintainable.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court first addressed the procedural validity of the second petition. The Bench noted that the rejection of the second petition was based on the fact that a previous petition for the same relief had already been rejected. The Court observed:
“There is no challenge to the order dated 10.01.2025 neither in the present petition nor previously… Consequently, we do not find any illegality in the order impugned for rejecting the second petition under Order 21 Rule 58.”
On Section 64 CPC and Unregistered Agreements
The Court analyzed the applicability of Section 64 of the CPC, specifically Sub-section (2), regarding private alienation of property after attachment. The Court clarified that Sub-section (2) provides an exception only when the transfer is made in pursuance of a contract entered into and registered before the attachment.
Distinguishing the present case from the precedents cited, the Court noted:
“In the present case firstly the agreement of sale, which is said to be of a date prior to the attachment is not registered and secondly there is no subsequent sale pursuant to such agreement of sale.”
Referring to the Sreedharan case, the Court observed that while contractual obligations arising from an antecedent agreement must prevail over the rights of an attaching creditor, that case involved a subsequent conveyance pursuant to the agreement. In the present matter, the agreement was unregistered, thus failing to attract Section 64(2) CPC.
Distinguishing Precedents
Regarding the Kancherla Lakshminarayana case, the Court pointed out that in that matter, the agreement of sale was not denied, and the suit for specific performance was pending prior to the relevant execution proceedings. In contrast, the Court noted:
“In the present case the agreement of sale is not registered so as to attract Section 64(2) CPC, and the suit for specific performance filed in the year 2025 was also not pending at the time of first rejection of the petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC vide order dated 10.01.2025.”
Conclusion and Decision
The High Court concluded that the filing of a suit for specific performance after the dismissal of the first claim petition did not make the second petition maintainable. The Court held:
“We are of the view that petitioner’s first E.A.No.364 of 2024 having been rejected the Second EA.No.474 of 2025 filed for the same relief by the same petitioner could not be maintainable, simply because after dismissal of the first EA.No.364 of 2024, the petitioner filed the suit for specific performance of contract.”
Affirming the decision of the lower court, the High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition. No order as to costs was passed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Guturi Ranga Ratnam vs. M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. & Others
- Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 3050 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao
- Counsel for Petitioner: Sri A. Eswar Sai
