ORDER : SUMATHI JAGADAM, J. 1 The issue for consideration on the present revision is whether a litigant, who files a petition before the executing court and, upon it being returned with observations regarding its maintainability, can, without representing the matter before that court, directly invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The obvious answer is in the negative. 2 The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 11.01.2024, whereby his application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 read with Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing E.A. (CFR) No. 107 of 2023 in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 arising out of O.S. No. 110 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, to set aside the sale held on 23/11/2023, was returned with the following endorsement. Returned 11/01/2024 “How this claim petition is maintainable, since no right title or interest will be passed to the petitioner and pray attach of schedule property. Hence Returned.” 3 The first respondent, as plaintiff, instituted O.S. No. 110 of 2020 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, against the second respondent, arrayed as defendant therein, seeking recovery of money. The suit was decreed ex parte on 11.11.2021 4 Pursuant to the decree and judgment, the decree-holder (first respondent) instituted E.P. No. 29 of 2022 under Order XXI Rules 54, 64 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure for realization of the decretal amount of Rs.30,59,177/- by bringing the schedule property of the second respondent to sale. The matter thereafter came up for confirmation of sale. 5 Subsequently, the revision petitioner filed a claim petition under Order XXI, Rule 58, and Sections 47 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to set aside the sale dated 23.11.2023. 6 The schedule property described in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 in O.S. No. 110 of 2020 had already been attached in E.P. No. 119 of 2020 in O.S. No. 66 of 2015, on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur. This attachment was filed by the revision petitioner against M/s Sri Sandhya Enterprises Cotton Ginning Mill, represented by the second respondent herein. 7 The claim petition filed by the revision petitioner was returned on 11.01.2024 with the office objection as mentioned above. This attachment was filed by the revision petitioner against M/s Sri Sandhya Enterprises Cotton Ginning Mill, represented by the second respondent herein. 7 The claim petition filed by the revision petitioner was returned on 11.01.2024 with the office objection as mentioned above. 8 Challenging the order of return, the revision petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition. 9 (a) Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the petitioner instituted a suit in O.S. No. 66 of 2015 before the IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, against the second respondent for recovery of Rs. 32,62,878.71. The suit was decreed on 13.11.2018. b) The second respondent preferred A.S. No. 116 of 2019 before this Court, and by order dated 20.03.2019 in I.A. No. 1 of 2019, this Court granted stay of the judgment and decree dated 13.11.2018 in O.S. No. 66 of 2015, subject to the condition that the second respondent deposit 50% of the decretal amount in the suit account. c) Upon the second respondent’s failure to comply with this direction, the petitioner filed E.P. No. 119 of 2020 in O.S. No. 66 of 2015. On 08.02.2020, the learned IV Additional District Judge, Guntur, ordered attachment of the scheduled property of the second respondent. d) The same scheduled property had already been attached and sold in execution proceedings in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 in O.S. No. 110 of 2020 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur. e) Learned counsel further submits that the first respondent is a close relative of the second respondent, being his daughter’s father-in-law, and alleges that the decree obtained by the second respondent is collusive and has been engineered solely to defeat the claim petitioner’s rights. f) It is further contended that instead of returning the petition filed by him the trial court ought to have entertained the claim petition (E.A. (CFR) No. 107 of 2022 in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 in O.S. No. 110 of 2020), since the attachment of the scheduled property in E.P. No. 119 of 2020 is the same as that in E.P. No. 29 of 2022. g) Finally, he submits the auction conducted by the trial court in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 is therefore void and unlawful and submits that the trial court erred in returning the claim petition, and accordingly, prays that the revision petition be allowed. g) Finally, he submits the auction conducted by the trial court in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 is therefore void and unlawful and submits that the trial court erred in returning the claim petition, and accordingly, prays that the revision petition be allowed. 10 (a) Per contra, learned counsel for the second respondent/Judgment Debtor-Respondent (JDR) contends that the revision petition is premature and liable to be dismissed. He argues that the specific objections raised must first be addressed before the trial court, and that the present civil revision petition has not been properly filed. b) He further submits that a part of the scheduled property of the second respondent was attached in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 in O.S. No. 110 of 2020, and that the sale proclamation was duly completed. c) His next submission is that the court proceeded with the sale of a two-thirds undivided share in the scheduled property. The sale was conducted in open court, wherein the first respondent, as the Decree Holder-Respondent (DHR), became the highest bidder with an offer of Rs. 36,60,000/-. Subsequently, the balance sale consideration of Rs. 3,70,177/- was paid on 23.11.2023 by Challan No. 70188385852023 from the E.P. warrant amount of Rs. 32,89,829/-. d) In support of his submissions, reliance is placed on the judgment of this Court in M. Jayamma Vs. Nadamuni Reddy (MANU/AP/0925/2001=2002 Supp(2) ALD 305) . It is observed thus: "7. When the Court receives a claim petition or objection made to attachment of any property in execution of the decree, it shall adjudicate the claim or objection as per the procedure contemplated under the above Rule. Under Order 21 Rule 58 (1), it is made crystal clear that no claim or objection shall be entertained (i) if the property attached has been already sold before filing of the claim petition, or (ii) where the Court considers the claim or objection was designedly or unnecessarily delayed. Therefore, the Court is not under an obligation to consider all claim applications or objections as a matter of course. The Court has to exercise the discretion vested in it judicially and take a decision with regard to entertainment of a petition in furtherance of cause of justice but not to defeat the claims of decree-holders and to ensure unscrupulous litigants do not defraud the law. The Court has to exercise the discretion vested in it judicially and take a decision with regard to entertainment of a petition in furtherance of cause of justice but not to defeat the claims of decree-holders and to ensure unscrupulous litigants do not defraud the law. The Court should also keep in mind that under Rule 58(5), if the Court refuses to entertain the claim or objection petition, the party is always at liberty to file a suit to establish their right over the property. Subject to any orders to be passed in a separate suit filed by the claimant, the order passed refusing to entertain the claim or objection shall be conclusive." 11 (a) A reading of Order XXI Rule 58 CPC addresses the key provision relating to claims or objections concerning the attachment of property in execution of a decree. The purpose of Order XXI Rule 58 is to secure the release of the property from attachment to prevent its improper sale. b) The question arises whether a petition under Order XXI Rule 58 should be filed when the Court issues the attachment order, or if the objection can only be made after the attachment has been executed. c) If a party or their representative objects, the matter falls under Section 47 of the CPC and ought to be decided by the executing court, rather than through a separate suit. d) An attachment of property in enforcement of a decree continues until the property is sold and the sale is confirmed. Any person who, at the time of attachment, has a right, title, interest in, or possession of the attached property may file a claim or object to the attachment (Union of India v. B. Chinnaswamy - AIR 2010 SC 3600 ) e) Sub-rule (5) of Rule 58 states that when a claim or objection is made but not accepted by the executing court, it is because (i) the property was sold before the claim or objection was raised, or (ii) the claim or objection was deliberately or unnecessarily delayed. The aggrieved party may file a suit to establish their right (Swami Sanghai Nirmal Chand v. Union of India - AIR 1966 SC 1068 ) 12 In the instant case, the claim petitioner is the aggrieved party in respect of the scheduled property, and the claim petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure. However, where the executing court declines to entertain a claim or objection against the attachment of property under the proviso to Rule 58(1), the remedy of the aggrieved party lies in instituting a suit and not in seeking a revision. 13 In the present matter, a claim petition had already been filed. The suit for recovery was decreed, followed by the filing of an execution petition for attachment of the schedule property, which was duly attached. Subsequently, the trial Court once again attached the same property and issued a sale proclamation in another suit involving the very same schedule property.” 14 When the claim petition was presented, the trial Court returned the same with an office objection. Instead of representing the petition and invite an order from the executing Court, the petitioner hastened to approach this, Court. Such a course of action is not appreciated by this Court, as it is impermissible in law. Unless and until a pronouncement is made by the Court below, this Court cannot entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 15 However, as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, procedural defects and irregularities which are curable in nature ought not to be permitted to stand in the way of doing substantial justice between the parties. The Courts should not dismiss matters on mere technicalities but should instead afford an opportunity to both sides and adjudicate the dispute on its merits. ( Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981) 2 SCC 788 ). 16 The maintainability of the present Civil Revision Petition is contingent upon the proper filing and due adjudication of the original claim petition. In a case where a party is denied an opportunity to adduce material evidence in support of its claim, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, and the matter remitted to the executing Court for fresh consideration of the claim petition, after affording both parties a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. In a case where a party is denied an opportunity to adduce material evidence in support of its claim, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, and the matter remitted to the executing Court for fresh consideration of the claim petition, after affording both parties a fair and reasonable opportunity of being heard. 17 Accordingly, this Court directs the petitioner to address and rectify the objections raised in the claim petition before the executing Court. 18 In exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court allows the Civil Revision Petition and grants liberty to the petitioner to resubmit the petition, vide E.A. (CFR) No. 107 of 2022 in E.P. No. 29 of 2022 in O.S. No. 110 of 2020, before the executing Court. 19 Upon such resubmission, the executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order. 20 The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.