1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India aggrieved by non-passing of orders in unregistered A.S.No… of 2025 (C.F.No.6001 of 2025) in E.A.No.32 of 2024 in E.P.No.2 of 2017 in O.S.No.174 of 2014 on the file of the District Judge, Ananthapuramu.

2. The facts leading to filing of the revision petition are as follows:

                  a. The respondent No.1 herein / decree holder (D.Hr.) obtained a decree for recovery of money in O.S.No.174 of 2014 against the respondent No.2 herein / judgment debtor (J.Dr.). The D.Hr. filed E.P.No.2 of 2017 for execution of the decree in the suit. The revision petitioner filed E.A.No.32 of 2024 under Order XXI, Rule 58 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to set aside the attachment of three items of suit schedule properties in respect of which attachment was ordered in I.A.No.238 of 2014 in O.S.No.174 of 2014 on 14.09.2014 and the order of attachment continued during the pendency of the execution proceedings in respect of the E.P. schedule properties.

                  b. The claimant contended that the E.A. schedule properties were purchased by her husband N.S.Salam under three registered sale deeds dated 27.06.2007, 07.02.2008 and 04.08.2008 and had absolute rights over the properties and that on 10.06.2010, her husband gifted her the petition scheduled properties to her in the presence of his sons and daughter with their verbal consent and delivered possession of them to her and thereafter she has been continuing in peaceful possession of the properties with absolute rights. She contended that she had come to know about the attachment recently before filing of the execution petition and that she had come to know that the suit promissory note was obtained collusively and the decree was obtained in the suit with false allegations and got properties attached in I.A.No.238 of 2014, with a view to knock away the properties. The claimant contended that attachment over the properties is void as the D.Hr. has no right to proceed with those properties for recovery of the decretal amount, as the J.Dr. has no salable interest over the petition scheduled properties.

                  c. The D.Hr. filed counter opposing the claim and denying the averments and further stating that the claimant, in collusion with J.Dr., filed the claim petition to defeat the legitimate rights of the D.Hr. and that the schedule mentioned properties belong to the father of J.Dr., N.S.Salam, who died in the year 2011, leaving behind the J.Dr. apart from other sons and his wife. Therefore, they succeeded the properties on his death and thus, the J.Dr. has 1/4th joint share in the petition schedule properties and the same is liable for attachment and sale in execution. He further submitted that the theory of oral gift is created to defeat the execution of the decree and that though the claimant is residing in the vicinity of the properties, had not raised any objection at the time of attachment made in the suit.

                  d. The petition was not opposed by the J.Dr.

                  e. After hearing the claimant and the D.Hr., the execution Court dismissed the petition holding that the claimant has 1/8th share in the presence of sons of the deceased and that each son of the deceased got 2/8th share and the daughter of the deceased got 1/8th share in the E.P. scheduled properties and that the share of J.Dr. / respondent No.2 i.e., 2/8th (=1/4th) in the E.P. schedule property would be only brought for sale.

                  f. Aggrieved by the order dated 16.06.2025 in E.A.No.32 of 2024, the claimant preferred an appeal before the Court of District Judge, Anantapuramu vide C.F.No.6001 of 2025, on 30.7.2025. Along with the appeal, an interlocutory application under Order XLI, Rule 5 C.P.C. was filed, seeking stay of operation of the decree and order of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), dated 16.06.2025 in E.A.No.32 of 2024 (i.e., the order in claim petition which is under challenge in appeal).

3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the interlocutory application is numbered as I.A.No.1011 of 2025 and that the appeal is yet to be registered due to pendency of petition filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the appeal. On 31.07.2025, the claimant / appellant filed this revision petition alleging that the petitioner is aggrieved by the non- passing of the order of stay of operation of the order impugned in the appeal. He further submitted that this sale was scheduled to be conducted on 04.08.2025 for the entire E.P. schedule property, whereas the date of sale approached very close, however since the appellate Court had not granted stay, the revision petitioner was compelled to file this revision petition.

4. On 13.08.2025, this Court granted an interim direction suspending proceedings in E.P.No.2 of 2017 till the next date of listing and directed the matter to be posted on 02.09.2025.

5. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that unless the proceedings in the execution are stayed, while adjudication of the appeal is pending, the purpose of filing the appeal would be defeated and admitted interest of the claimant in the schedule properties would be put to stake, since the execution Court also observed that the claimant is entitled to 1/8th share, though the oral gift by which she has ownership of the entire property is disbelieved. Therefore, he contends that if the claimant succeeds in establishing the oral gift, the entire property is to be released from attachment and there are good grounds to win the appeal.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the D.Hr. / respondent No.1 herein submitted that the revision petitioner filed the appeal on 30.07.2025 and rushed to this court on 31.07.2025 merely to secure an interim order stalling the proceedings in execution. He further submitted that since the petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is pending, the claimant is not entitled to interim order of stay of the proceedings in execution by virtue of Order XLI, Rule 3 (A)(3) before registration of the appeal. He further submitted that there was no occasion for the appellate Court to pass any interim order prayed for by the claimant since the appeal is not yet numbered and thereby the petition under Order XLI, Rule 5 also was not numbered.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 / J.Dr. sought time for instructions.

8. Since J.Dr.has not participated in the proceedings impugned in the appeal, no need to grant further time.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the matter before the appellate Court stands posted to 26.12.2025.

10. Under the above conditions, since further delay in the proceedings before the appellate Court would cause hardship to the parties, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of directing the appellate Court to dispose of the interlocutory application (filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act) on 26.12.2025, unless for any reason the Court does not sit on that day, in which case it should hear and dispose the petition on the next working day. The respondent No.1 herein / D.Hr. is directed to file counter, if so advised, before 26.12.2025.

                  There shall be no order as to costs.

                  Interim orders granted earlier, if any, shall stand vacated. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.