THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 427of 2010 Dated: 05-02-2010 Between:- Pasupuleti Malyadri ..Petitioner. And Puvvada Koteswara Rao and others. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 427 of 2010 Oral Order: This revision is directed against the order dated 18- 01-2010 rejecting E.A.No. 331 of 2009 in E.P.No. 123 of 2008 in O.S.No. 45 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. In this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the revision petitioner is the judgment debtor in suit which was decreed on 27-09-2006 directing the revision petitioner to vacate and deliver the possession of the suit schedule property. The legal heirs of original plaintiff (late Puvvada Koteswara Rao) filed E.P.No. 123 of 2008 for execution of the decree dated 27-09-2006. In E.A.No. 331 of 2009 filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 the revision petitioner pleaded that for the self same relief of possession of the suit schedule property, the deceased plaintiff-Puvvada Koteswara Rao had filed O.S.No.151 of 1995 claiming to be the owner of two items of the suit schedule property therein of which one item is the property in the plaint schedule property in O.S.No. 45 of 2005. As there was a dispute as to the ownership of the suit schedule item, O.S.No. 151 of 1995 was dismissed on 30-04-1997 recording a finding that the plaintiff failed to seek declaration and possession and failed to pay the Court fee relevant for such extended relief. Koteshwara Rao thereupon preferred an appeal – A.S.No. 94 of 1997 insofar as the suit relief was declined, i.e., in respect of the schedule item No.2 and during the pendency of A.S.No. 94 of 1997 filed the present suit on 12-02-2004 seeking possession. The revision petitioner further pleaded in E.A.No.331 of 2009 that during the pendency of the present suit – O.S.No. 45 of 2005, A.S.No. 94 of 1997 was disposed of by the judgment and decree dated 16-11-2004 of the Court of the learned II- Additional District Judge, Ongole confirming the findings in the substantive suit O.S.No. 151 of 1995. The decree in O.S.No. 151 of 1995 has therefore become final. In the circumstances the judgment and decree in O.S.No. 151 of 1995 as confirmed in A.S.No. 94 of 1997 operates as res judicata and bars grant of relief in O.S.No. 45 of 2005 is the substratum of the pleas in E.A.No. 331 of 2009 preferred by the petitioner herein. In the execution application, the petitioner also contended that he had purchased the property from the deceased 1st respondent under a contract of sale dated 03-03-2005 for a total consideration of Rs.7,50,000-00 of which he had paid Rs.6,50,000-00 and that he had consented for an ex-parte decree in view of the promise of the deceased-plaintiff (Koteshwar Rao). He also claimed to be contemplating the filing of a suit for specific performance of the agreement of sale dated 03-03-2005. The Court below rejected E.A.No. 331 of 2009 recording the following reasons: “Admittedly the decree passed in O.S. 45/05 passed by a competent civil Court in which the petitioners/JDRs were parties in the suit and that they have filed the written statement and that they are going to file a suit for specific performance of contract and not contested the matter and judgment in this suit became final and respondent/DHR filed EP for delivery of possession of the EP schedule property by filing EP 123/08, same was resisted by this petitioner/JDR by filing this application by stating that the judgment in OS 45/05 operates as res judicata and it cannot be executed. Moreover even though the decree is ex-parte, petitioner having filed written statement admitting ownership of the DHRs. Since this is a Executing Court and it is obvious and well settled law that an executing court cannot go behind the decree and if at all the JDR/petitioners if got any grievance in the decree they can file an appeal over the decree passed in OS 45/05 by stating that the grounds mentioned in this petition. Instead of the same asking this Court while executing the decree by stating the judgment in OS 151/95 on the file of Prl. Jr. Civil Judge Court, Ongole operates as res judicata in executing the decree is concerned, I am of the considered opinion said objection is not tenable. Under Section 47 of C.P.C. it deals with whether there is any question relating to execution, discharge and satisfaction. Here there is no point of discharge or satisfaction of the decree since JDRs themselves admitting that there is no satisfaction of the decree. So far as relief of execution is concerned the DHRs who are respondents herein seeking the Court to execute the decree by obtaining a decree from the competent civil court in OS 45/05, that decree is a valid decree and it is not the case of the JDR that the decree is invalid or obtain by fraud or any other case and that unless and until the said decree was set aside or modified by the Appellate Court or by setting aside by way of Order-9 Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure, the said decree is in-executable. Here in this case admittedly the decree and judgment passed in O.S. 45/05 was not set aside or modified appeal or not set aside by Order 9 Rule 13 and the decree is enforceable decree and passed by obtaining in court of law and petitioner/JDR could not place any evidence said decree is in-executable. In those circumstances I am of the firm opinion there are no merits in this application. Hence petitioner deserves no consideration and petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence I answered the point accordingly.” This Court discerns no error in the application of law or the exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting interference in a revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits. The revision petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated: 05-02-2010 Pvks/*