THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5660 OF 2011 Dated: 29.12.2011 Between : K.Subrahmanyam … Petitioner And P.Venkateshwarlu and 2 others … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5660 OF 2011 O R D E R: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 30.08.2011 in E.A.No.588 of 2007 in E.P.No.434 of 2007 in O.S.No.3117 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. The facts in brief are as under: The 1st respondent herein/plaintiff filed O.S.No.3117 of 2006 against the revision petitioner and the respondents 2 and 3 herein for injunction restraining them from constructing any structures within the open space situated to the eastern side and southern side of the plaintiff’s schedule property by violating the approved building plan. By judgment dated 18.04.2007 though the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn, it was ordered that if the defendants 1 and 2 make any construction in deviation of sanctioned plan, the plaintiff was at liberty to get the deviated portion removed through process of Court. Against the said judgment and decree, to the extent of dismissing the suit as withdrawn, the revision petitioner/1st defendant preferred A.S.No.199 of 2007, which is pending on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The revision petitioner/1st defendant also preferred cross objections contending that the liberty granted to the plaintiff by the trial Court for getting the deviated portion removed through process of Court is impermissible under law. While so, the plaintiff/1st respondent herein preferred E.P.No.434 of 2007 alleging that the defendants 1 and 2 have been making illegal constructions without leaving set backs on the four sides of the building. In the said execution proceedings, the revision petitioner/J.Dr.No.1 filed E.A.No.588 of 2007 under Section 47 of C.P.C. with a prayer to dismiss the execution petition as not maintainable. After hearing both the parties, the Court below dismissed E.A.No.588 of 2007 by order dated 30.08.2011. Aggrieved by the said order dated 30.08.2011, the present Revision Petition is filed. It is urged by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that having preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree, dated 18.04.2007, it is not open to the 1st respondent to seek execution of the said decree. While relying upon a decision of the Supreme Court in BALRAJ TANEJA v. SUNIL MADAN[1], it is further contended that the decree sought to be executed is not a decree within the meaning of Section 2(2) of C.P.C. I have also heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material available on record. The certified copy of Memorandum of Grounds in A.S.No.191 of 2007 has been placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents and a perusal of the same shows that the appeal preferred by the 1st respondent herein against the judgment in O.S.No.3117 of 2006 was only to the extent of dismissal of suit as withdrawn. Therefore, the 1st respondent is entitled to take execution proceedings in terms of the liberty granted by the Court below to get the deviated portion removed through the process of the Court. Hence the contention that the execution petition is not maintainable cannot be accepted. However it is always open to the revision petitioner to file his counter and contest the execution proceedings on merits. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 29.12.2011 Ivd [1] (1999)8 SCC 396