HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1918 OF 2010 Dated: 29.4.2010 Between: Smt. Shobha Sudershan Reddy and another. ..Petitioners And A. Raghuram Reddy .. Respondent. This Court made the following HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1918 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 21.4.2010 in EASR.No.2718 of 2010 in E.P.No.48 of 2010 in O.S.No.3156 of 2004 passed by the V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioners herein are the Decree Holders and the respondent is the judgment debtor. Originally, the petitioners filed the above suit for eviction of the respondent and the said suit was decreed and the said judgment of the Court below was confirmed by the appellate Courts in first and second appeals ordering eviction of the respondent. As the respondent did not vacate the schedule premises, the petitioners filed the above E.P. The Court below ordered notice to the respondent and posted the matter to 12.7.2010 for his appearance. On that, the petitioners filed the above EA seeking to advance the date of hearing in the above E.P. The Court below having found that there is no urgency to advance the main EP, posted the above EA along with the E.P. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition has been filed. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has contended that even though sufficient time was granted by three Courts to the respondent to vacate the schedule premises, he has not vacated the same and therefore, no notice is required to be issued in the E.P. and the Executing Court ought to have advanced hearing of the E.P. instead of posting it along with the main E.P. Admittedly, the E.P. is pending before the Court below and the Court below also ordered notice to the respondent in the said E.P. directing for his appearance. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Court below was unjustified in ordering notice on the above E.P. However, in view of the fact that the litigation is pending between the parties since a long time, the petitioners are at liberty to make appropriate application afresh before the Court below seeking advancement of the E.P., if they so desire. Accordingly, the Civil revision Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Date: 29th April, 2010 Nn/pnb. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:1918 OF 2010 29.04.2010