HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4175 of 2010 DATED 28TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. BETWEEN Patan Saheb Khan (died) and ors … Petitioners and Kurapati Srimannarayana …Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4175 of 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the docket order dated 06.07.2010 passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, Venkatagiri, Nellore District, in E.P.No.40 of 2009 in O.S.No. 14 of 1995, whereunder, the oﬃce of the Court below was directed to depute the Field Assistant to carry out the demolition of structure from the site described in schedule mentioned property in the suit and also issue attachment warrant under Rule 43 on depositing Rs.100/- towards administration charges. The petitioners are the Judgment Debtors. The respondent is the Decree holder. The respondent laid O.S.No. 14 of 1995 for delivery of the vacant suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed as prayed for and the judgment & decree passed in the said suit attained finality. Later, the decree holder ﬁled E.P.No. 40 of 2009 for execution of the decree. During the pendency of the E.P., the petitioner sought time, but the matter was posted for enquiry on 06.07.2010 and on the same day, the above said order was passed. It is the case of the petitioners that during the pendency of the suit, the suit land was transferred to third parties and they were not made parties to the suit. It is the case of the petitioners that EP schedule property was already alienated by one of the respondents/decree holders to one Vemula Venkata Ratnamma and Rangineni Lalithamma by means of a document No.1219/2009, dated 16.06.2009 and consequently, the respondent/decree holder did not have any right in the EP schedule property and therefore, E.P. is not maintainable, and, on that ground, the EP should have been dismissed. In my considered opinion, these are all the grounds taken by the petitioners only to avoid execution. I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Executing Court in E.P.No. 40 of 2009 in O.S.No. 14 of 1995, dated 06.07.2010. The Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioners stated that the petitioners may be given some time to vacate the premises. It is not for this Court to examine such aspect. It is always open for them to ﬁle appropriate application before the Executing Court as permissible under law and the Executing Court shall pass orders as per law. There shall be no order as to costs. ----------------------------------- JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU 28T H SEPTEMBER,2010. Msnr.