THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.4264 of 2011 Dated 30th December, 2011 Between: Sri Swarna Bharathi Educational Society …Petitioner And The Kamma Mahajan Sangham …Respondent Counsel for the petitioner: Sri M.V.Venu Counsel for the respondent: Sri S.Syamsunder Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This civil revision petition arises out of order, dated 29.08.2011, in E.P.No.331 of 2011, in O.S.No.146 of 2010, on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Khammam, whereby she has directed registration of EP and issued direction to the bailiff to evict the petitioner from the suit schedule premises and handover possession to the respondent, who is the decree holder. I have heard Sri M.V.Venu, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri S.Syamsunder Rao, learned counsel for the respondent. The petitioner filed O.S.No.146 of 2010 for injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with its possession of the suit schedule property, in which, it is running a school. The suit was referred to the Lok Adalat at Khammam and registered as L.A.C.No.422 of 2010. Both the parties have arrived at a settlement on the basis of which, the Lok Adalat has passed an award. As per the award, the petitioner is permitted to continue in the suit schedule property from 01.04.2010 to 31.07.2011 on payment of Rs.15,000/- per month and the petitioner shall vacate the property by the end of July, 2011 without any litigation. As the petitioner failed to stand on its commitment by refusing to vacate the premises, the respondent filed E.P.No.331 of 2011 in which the above-mentioned order, which is assailed in this revision petition, has been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as his client is running a school, it may be permitted to remain in possession for some time. In my opinion, having entered into a settlement on the basis of which an award was passed and having taken advantage of the said award by continuing in possession for one year and four months, the petitioner cannot be allowed to resile from its commitment. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction will not permit the petitioner to make a volte-face. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to disposal of the civil revision petition, C.R.P.M.P.No.6049 of 2011 is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th December, 2011 VGB