THE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.R.P.No. 5275 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the judgment debtor in E.P.No.9 of 2010, filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, by way of house-motion today i.e., 14.11.2010, aggrieved against the order, dated 11.11.2010, passed in E.P.No.9 of 2010 in O.S.No.97 of 2003 on the file of the Judge, Family Court, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, whereby, the delivery of possession in pursuance of an execution, which has been lead by the respondent-decree holder, was issued. Briefly, the facts which give rise to the present petition are as under: The petitioner is the defendant, against whom a decree of eviction was passed in O.S.No.97 of 2003 and aggrieved thereby, he filed a regular appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure in C.C.C.A.No.23 of 2010, and he obtained an interim order of stay subject to certain conditions in C.C.A.M.P.Nos.177 and 178 of 2010. Admittedly, the petitioner has not complied with the said conditions. According to the petitioner, though he filed appropriate applications in C.C.A.M.P.(SR) Nos.13022 and 13023 of 2010 seeking further direction and extension of time for default of compliance of the said conditions as long back as on 01.10.2010, the same has not been taken up and yet the lower Court is proceeded to issue a delivery warrant, which is wholly unsustainable. Hence, the revision. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record, it is quite apparent that as regular appeal is pending on the file of this Court, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner to move appropriate applications in appropriate manner rather than moving independent revision by invoking Article 227 of the Constitution of India as against the order of delivery of possession, is nothing but an order giving effect to non-compliance of the decree obtained by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner cannot seek any indulgence in either way. Hence, I do not find any reason warranting interference in the proceedings impugned. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to move an appropriate application in the main appeal. No order as to costs. ____________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, HACJ Date:14 -11-2010 Sj/kl