IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO :758 of 2010 Between: S. Azhar Ahsan ..... PETITIONER AND 1. Smt. Zubeda Begum and others. .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following : HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:758 OF 2010 ORDER: Aggrieved by the inaction of the Court below on Memo SR.No.5441 of 2008 in E.A.No.120 of 2004 in E.P.No.5 of 2004 in O.S.No.101 of 1976 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. The petitioner herein is the claim petitioner. Respondents 1 to 5 are the Decree Holders and respondents 6 and 7 are the Judgment debtors. The petitioner herein filed an application in E.A.No.120 of 2004 in E.P.No.5 of 2004 in O.S.No.101 of 1976 under Order 21 Rule 97 read with Rule 101 & 105 CPC on the ground that the decree holders are not the owners of the property referred as M.No.8-2-282/A/1, and 8- 2-282/A/2 admeasuring 1812 sq. yards situated at Road No.3, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad and that the claim made by the decree holders is false and that the said property does not belong to them and it is the intention of the decree holders to execute the warrant in respect of the property of the claim petitioner and that actually, the decree holders along with Judgment debtors fabricated certain documents and in collusion they obtained the decree in O.S.No.101 of 1976. On such application, the Court below examined the petitioner and posted the matter for respondents’ evidence. At that stage, the petitioner filed a memo seeking to expedite the matter on the ground that he is a senior citizen aged about 70 years. As the matter is being adjourned, the petitioner filed the present application. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. It is the case of the petitioner that he is a Senior Citizen aged about 70 years and he had undergone open heart surgery and the Court below is not proceeding with the above claim petition expeditiously inspite of several representations and memo. The claim of the petitioner in the above EA is that he being the absolute owner has got an independent right, title, and interest in the property in question and that the decree holders have got no right, title or interest over the same. In a case of this nature, the question that arises between the parties as to the right, title or interest in the property must be determined by the Executing Court. Admittedly, the present E.A., which is filed by the claim petitioner, is pending and it is coming for evidence of the respondents. From this, it appears that the Court below is taking steps to adjudicate the issue in question, in accordance with law. Taking into consideration the nature and the scope of the proceedings and the age of the parties, the Court below will take all necessary steps to dispose of the same, in accordance with law. Therefore, I do not feel that any further directions are required to be issued for disposal of the EA. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari Dated:26.02.2010 Nn. HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENAKUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:758 OF 2010 26.02.2010