THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4732 of 2010 Dated:07.12.2011 Between: Chittamsetty Chinna Nagaraju, And others. …Petitioners and Chittamsetty Nagaraju Died as per LRS (P1) And others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4732 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners, who are eight in number, are some of the defendants in O.S.No.80 of 1967 on the ﬁle of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram. The said suit was filed by the respondents for partition. The suit was decreed and a preliminary decree was passed on 30.09.1972 directing partition and separate possession of 1/5th share in plaint A and B schedule properties to the plaintiﬀs. The plaintiﬀs/decree holders then ﬁled E.P.No.119 of 2009 along with E.A.No.521 of 2009 for execution of decree. It appears, sixth respondent herein also ﬁled E.P.No.94 of 2009 for allotment of part of the schedule property. The property was delivered to him and the said E.P was closed. In spite of the same, the sixth respondent again ﬁled E.P.No.30 of 2010 for delivery of E.P schedule property being Madras Terraced building bearing door No.13-1-23. The Court below passed orders directing issue of delivery warrant. The Field Assistant was directed to execute warrant by taking Police aid. The respondents were directed to pay the batta. They did not do so. They ﬁled an application seeking ﬁfteen days time for payment of batta. By an order dated 08.10.2010 while denying the relief the Court directed the respondents to pay fresh delivery warrant batta for Police aid and to break open the lock. This order is assailed in the Civil Revision Petition. The Counsel for the petitioners/defendants would submit that when the property was already delivered in E.P.No.94 of 2009 to the sixth respondent, the issue of another delivery warrant in respect of the E.P schedule property is unsustainable. The submission made is wholly misconceived. A perusal of the record would show that against the order of the executing Court dated 23.10.2009, it appears, the petitioners ﬁled a revision before this Court, being C.R.P.No.3740 of 2010. It was brought to the notice of the executing Court that the said Civil Revision Petition stood posted for dismissal, and this prompted the Court below to allow some time for the decree holders to pay the delivery warrant batta. Either in the manner of dealing the case of the respondents or in directing payment of fresh batta, the Court below exercised sound discretion. The same does not warrant any interference in this Civil Revision Petition. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 07.12.2011 vs