Judgment :- (PRAYER: Revision filed against the Order passed in E.A.No.157 of 2005 in E.P.No.390 of 2004 in O.S.No.393 of 1998 dated 11.02.2005, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.) When the CMP came up for hearing, by the consent of both parties, the main revision Petition itself has been taken up for hearing. 2. This revision is directed against the Order of the Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli made in E.A.No.157 of 2005 in E.P.No.390 of 2004 in O.S.No.393 of 1998, dated 11.02.2005, dismissing the Petition filed under Order 21, Rule 69 CPC and declining to adjourn the sale. 3. E.P.No.390 of 2004 in O.S.No.393 of 1998 was filed in execution of the mortgage in O.S.No.393 of 1998. The Mortgage Deed relates to six items of properties. The following dates are relevant to be noted: - Date of Mortgage : 22.11.1993 Date of Preliminar Decree : 6.6.2002 Date of Final Decree : 10.06.2003 Date of Sale infavour of the Claimant : 10.01.1996 Date of filing claim Petition : 10.02.2005 4. The mortgaged six items of properties were sought to be sold. The Revision Petitioner/Claimant filed E.A.No.153 of 2005 under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC seeking declaration that the Petitioner is entitled to the second schedule property. Case of the Revision Petitioner is that she purchased the properties by a Sale Deed dated 10.01.1996. Osne Kithar Mohammed, as Power of Attorney to the second Respondent / Balapalaniyappan, sold the properties to the Claimant. The Claimant has also put up constructions in two shops bearing Door Nos.164-P, 164-P-1. The Claimant/Petitioner was not made a party to the mMortgage suit; nor in the Execution proceedings, but the constructed shop portions are included in the schedule of properties sought to be sold. Hence the Revision Petitioner/Claimant has filed claim Petition in E.A.No.153 of 2003, under Order 21, Rule 58 CPC. E.A.No.157 of 2003 was filed under Order 21, Rule 69 CPC to adjourn the sale scheduled on 11.02.2005. Upon hearing the parties, the Petition for adjourning the sale was dismissed. 5. Aggrieved over the order of dismissal, the Revision Petitioner/Claimant has preferred this revision. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the Petition for adjourning the sale. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities since the same is not a speaking order. 5. Aggrieved over the order of dismissal, the Revision Petitioner/Claimant has preferred this revision. Assailing the impugned order, the learned counsel for the Revision Petitioner contended that the trial Court erred in dismissing the Petition for adjourning the sale. It is further submitted that the impugned order suffers from serious infirmities since the same is not a speaking order. Drawing the attention of the Court to Order 21 Rule 59 CPC, the learned counsel has submitted that pending adjudication of the claim Petition, the property shall not be sold, while so, the trial Court ought to have adjourned the sale, till the disposal of the claim Petition and the impugned order is to be set aside. 6. Countering the arguments, the learned counsel for the Respondent/Decree Holder has submitted that the vendor of the Petitioner has already mortgaged the property to the Respondent and that any sale by the Mortgagor is subject to the mortgage. It is further submitted that no amount was paid though the Preliminary Decree was passed on 06.06.2002 and Final Decree on 10.06.2002. Drawing the attention of the Court to Order 21 Rule 59(2) CPC, the learned counsel has submitted that the stay order could be made only on such terms and conditions and that there is no improper exercise of discretion in dismissing the Petition warranting interference. 7. Whether the impugned order declining the stay of the sale suffers from infirmity and whether there is improper exercise of discretion in declining to adjourn the sale ? is the point that arises for consideration in this revision Petition. 8. The sale infavour of the Revision Petitioner/Claimant on 10.01.1996 is subsequent to the Mortgage Deed (Mortgage Deed is dated 22.11.1993). Any purchase thereafter is only subject to the mortgage. The Revision Petitioner/Claimant cannot challenge the mortgage Decree. The Revision Petitioner seems to have no prima facie case in seeking for adjournment of the sale. The learned Subordinate Judge is right in dismissing the Petition for adjournment of the sale. 9. The point that arises for consideration in the main claim Petition is the maintainability of the claim Petition. Order 21 Rule 58 CPC relates to adjudication or claims or objections to attachment of property. The learned Subordinate Judge is right in dismissing the Petition for adjournment of the sale. 9. The point that arises for consideration in the main claim Petition is the maintainability of the claim Petition. Order 21 Rule 58 CPC relates to adjudication or claims or objections to attachment of property. Order 21 Rule 58(1) reads thus: - "58(1) Where any claim is preferred to, or any objection is made to the attachment of, any property attached in execution of a decree on the ground that such property is not liable to such attachment, the Court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the claim or objection in accordance with the provisions herein contained." 10. Mortgage debt is a secured debt. Hence in execution of the Mortgage Decree, no further attachment of mortgaged property is necessary. On the basis of the Final Decree, mortgaged property is to be sold. Since the mortgage is already a secured debt, no further attachment is necessary. It is highly doubtful whether the Petition filed under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC is maintainable. The question of maintainability of the Petition under Order 21 Rule 58 CPC is to be gone into at the time of hearing the claim Petition in E.A.No.153 of 2004, suffice it to point out that the Petitioner has no prima facie case to grant stay of sale. 11. In the impugned order, the learned Subordinate Judge has only stated "Heard. Petition dismissed". The impugned order is seriously attacked contending that it is a non-speaking order, which is to be set aside. No doubt, it would have been better for the learned trial Judge to have indicated his mind for dismissal of the Petition. But that does not affect the correctness of the order, warranting interference on that technical ground. 12. Under Order 21 Rule 59(2) CPC, stay of sale is not mandatory. It is within the discretion of the Court. Order of stay of sale under Order 21 Rule 59 CPC may be granted only subject to such terms and conditions as to security or otherwise, as the court thinks fit. Under Order 21 Rule 59 CPC, the Petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot seek to stay the sale. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge has chosen to dismiss the Petition for adjourning the sale. There is no improper exercise of discretion warranting interference. Under Order 21 Rule 59 CPC, the Petitioner, as a matter of right, cannot seek to stay the sale. In consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Subordinate Judge has chosen to dismiss the Petition for adjourning the sale. There is no improper exercise of discretion warranting interference. This revision Petition is devoid of merits and is bound to fail. 13.Therefore, the order of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, made in E.A.No.157 of 2005 in E.P.No.390 of 2004 in O.S.No.393 of 1998, dated 11.02.2005, is confirmed and this revision Petition is dismissed. Consequently, CMP No.2702 of 2005 is also dismissed. Interim stay already granted is vacated. In the circumstances of the case, there is no order as to costs.