ORDER
L. Narasimha Reddy, J.
1. In a way, it can be said that this revision presents a tragedy of errors. The 1st respondent filed O.S. No.207 of 1999 against Respondents 2 to 4 in the Court of X Additional Chief Judge, (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, for recovery of certain amount. He also filed I.A. No. 1304 of 1999 under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC and obtained an order of attachment before judgment in respect of an item of immovable property, through order, dated 30-4-1999.
2. Stating that he purchased the very item through Sale Deed, dated 22-3-1999, the 1st petitioner filed I.A. No. 187 of 1999 under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC with a prayer to raise attachment. Some how or the other, the trial Court does not appear to have dealt with, the said application. It is stated that the suit was ultimately decreed in the year 2004.
3. It is stated that even while the suit was pending, the 1st petitioner transferred the item of property in favour of Petitioners 2 and 3 on 24-4-2002. In view of this development, the petitioners herein filed I.A. No. 540 of 2003 under Order 1 Rule 10, read with Sections 151 and 141 CPC with a prayer to substitute Petitioners 2 and 3 as claim petitioners in the place of the 1st petitioner, in I.A. No. 187 of 1999. Through its order, dated 1-8-2006, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, this revision.
4. Sri P. Pandu Ranga Rao, learned Counsel for the petitioners, submits that though I.A. Nos. 187 of 1999 and 540 of 2003 were filed while the suit was pending, they were kept pending and the suit was ultimately decreed. He contends that once the suit was decreed, the very basis for the trial Court to deal with the application for impleading Petitioners 2 and 3 herein in the claim petition ceased to exist and the whole exercise was in a direction, not contemplated in law. He submits that before any steps are taken against the attached property, the claims of Petitioners 2 and 3 must be taken into account.
5. It is not known as to how an application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC was taken up after the suit itself was disposed of by the trial Court. If I.A. No. 187 of 1999 filed by the 1st petitioner was treated by the trial Court as superfluous in view of the decree passed in the suit, equally same, the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to substitute Petitioners 2 and 3 in the place of the 1st petitioner, in the petition, ought to have been closed.
6. Curiously, the trial Court has passed a very lengthy order without realizing the fact that the suit itself was disposed of and the necessity to implead any parties, in such an event, does not arise.
7. This Court is compelled to observe that the trial Court ought to have bestowed its attention to simplify the facts and express them in an understandable form. The following sentences, which occur at the stage of discussion in the order, disclose the nature of consideration.
There is no dispute fact that the attachment of the schedule property by the Court in I.A. No. 1304 of 1999. Even the contention of Petitioner No. l that he purchased the schedule property prior to the said attachment i.e., if once the property was attached by the Court in I.A. No. 1304 of 1999 and attachment so made was not raised by the Court how the petitioner has right to sell the property to the proposed petitioners….
8. Necessary attention ought to have been paid to ensure coherence. Writing of simple sentences, would have avoided the confusion that emerged out of the language employed in the order, of which, a sample is presented above. A Judge is supposed to express his views, in such a language, as can be understood by an ordinary person. Coherence and consistency are the basic requirements.
9. Notwithstanding the aspects referred to above, it clearly emerges that with the disposal of the suit, the whole exercise of filing of an application under Order XXXVIII Rule 8 CPC or the necessity to substitute the parties therein, become unnecessary and impermissible. Once a decree is passed, the claim of any third party must be presented through an application filed under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, and not under Order XXXVIII.
10. For the foregoing reasons, the civil revision petition is disposed of, directing that the order under revision is superfluous, without leading to adjudication of any right and that it shall be open to the petitioners to present an application under Order XXI Rule 58 of CPC, stating their claim. As and when such application is filed, it shall be dealt with on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made in the order passed in I.A. No. 540 of 2003. There shall be no order as to costs.