THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No. 2637 of 2008. ORDER: The present revision petition is filed against the order dt. 9.4.2008 in E.P.No. 23 of 1998 in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Ibrahimpatnam, Ranga Reddy District, whereby the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the execution petition. The petitioners, who are the decree holders, filed E.P.No. 23 of 1998. under Order 21 Rules 11 and 32 r/w 151 C.P.C. praying to punish the Judgement Debtors by sending them to civil prison and to attach their properties for disobeying the Judgement and Decree dt. 11.6.1986 in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 and the order dt. 5.4.1995 passed in E.P.No. 5 of 1994. The facts in brief are that Decree Holder No.1 is said to be the father of Decree Holder No.2 and they filed O.S.No. 352 of 1982 for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and also for correction of record of rights in respect of land in S.No.1437 to an extent of Ac. 0.16 gts situated at Khalsa Ibrahimpatnam, Ibrahimpatnam Mandal, R.R.District and that the said suit was decreed on 11.6.1986 and an appeal in A.S.SR.No. 2175 of 1995 was dismissed on 15.3.1995 and that C.R.P.No. 1296 of 1998 filed by the respondents against the Judgement in A.S.(SR) No. 2175 of 1995 was also dismissed by this Court on 6.7.1998. Thereafter, the Decree Holders filed E.P.No. 5 of 1995 praying the Court to direct the Judgement Debtors to implement the decree in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 and incorporate the names of the decree holders in the column ‘land holder’ by deleting the name ‘Government’ in respect of petition schedule land and that after hearing both sides, the E.P. was allowed on 5.4.1995 with costs directing the Judgement Debtors to comply with the decree in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 within 30 days failing which the decree holders shall take legal steps. It was the case of the petitioners that despite orders passed in E.P.No. 5 of 1994 and issuance of legal notice, the Judgement Debtors are not implementing the decree passed in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 and that the judgment debtors are regularly causing interference in peaceful possession and enjoyment of decree holders with an intention to evict them from petition schedule land. The judgement debtors filed objections stating that the decree in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 does not spell out any positive direction to the Judgment debtors for correction of entries in revenue records and that the relief in the decree in inexecutable, particularly as it is declaratory in nature and that the E.P. is hopelessly barred by limitation. Before the trial Court, Decree Holder No.2 is examined as Pw.1 and got marked Exs:P.1 to P.3 and Judgement Debtor is examined as Pw.2 and got marked Exs:R.1 to A.24. After appreciating the evidence adduced before the trial court, the trial Court, by the order dt. 9.4.2008 dismissed the execution petition holding that since the daughters of late Roshan Ali (D.Hr. No.1) filed O.S.No. 207 of 2007 seeking cancellation of the Judgement and Decree in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 out of which the present E.P. arose, it cannot be said that the J.Drs., intentionally not implemented the decree in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 and also failed to establish the alleged interference being caused by the J.Drs. Aggrieved by the said order, the present civil revision petition is filed. Heard both sides. The point that arises for consideration is whether the order under revision is sustainable or it is to be set aside? Pw.1 (D.Hr., No.2) in his cross-examination pleaded ignorance to answer as to whether the MRO issued legal heir certificate stating that Roshan Ali has got only three daughters namely Ameena Bee, Mahaboob Bee and Kubra Bee and he had no male issues and he also admitted in his cross examination that before 1954-55, the petition schedule land was his ancestral property and during the pendency of E.P. Kubra Bee and Mahaboob Bee filed E.A.No. 20 of 2005 praying to implead them to the E.P. on the ground that they are the daughters of late Roshan Ali and that they have interest in the petition schedule land and that the said E.A. was dismissed on 5.7.2006 on merits. He also admitted in his cross-examination that Kubra Bee and Mahaboob Bee filed O.S.No. 207 of 2007 for cancellation of Judgement and Decree passed in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 against the decree holders and judgement debtors alleging that decree holder No.1 obtained decree by playing fraud on the court. The learned Counsel for the decree holders contended before the trial court that pendency of O.S.No. 207 of 2007 cannot be a ground not to send the judgement debtors to civil prison and not to attach their properties particularly as O.S.No. 207 of 2007 was filed during the pendency of E.P. and as O.S.No. 207 of 2007 is barred by limitation. Basing on the admissions made by Pw.1 in his cross- examination and dealing with the contention of the learned Counsel for the decree holder, the trial court held that, that court cannot come to a conclusion that the suit in O.S.No. 207 of 2007 is liable to be dismissed on the ground that it is barred by time since the decree holders and judgments debtors have to be given an opportunity to contest the suit. The trial court further held that since the daughters of late Roshan Ali (D.Hr. No.1) filed O.S.No. 207 of 2007 seeking cancellation of Judgement and Decree in O.S.No. 352 of 1982 out of which E.P.No. 23 of 1998 arose, it cannot be said that judgement debtors intentionally not implemented the decree in O.S.No. 352 of 1982. With regard to the allegation that the judgement debtors are regularly causing interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the D.Hrs., with an intention to evict them from the petition schedule land, the trial court held that there is no whisper in the evidence of Pw.1 with regard to the said allegation and no evidence is adduced to establish the said allegation and accordingly dismissed the E.P. The reasoning adopted by the trial court while dismissing the execution petition does not suffer from any irregularity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in this revision petition. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.CHANDRAIAH,J 08.06.2010. krb. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.No. 2637 of 2008. ORDER: Dt. 08.06.2010.