IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE THIRTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2497 of 2008 BETWEEN Karanam Venkata Krishna Rao. ... PETITIONER AND Dhodda Nageswara Rao and others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. S.R. SANKU Counsel for the Respondents: --NONE APPEARED-- The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision petition is connected with CRP.No.1351 of 2008 already disposed of by this Court on 23.09.2011. The present revision also arises out of an application being E.A.No.117 of 2008 filed under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by respondent No.15 in I.A.No.96 of 1995 in O.S.No.2 of 1984, a final decree application. 2. Petitioner herein is the son of the second respondent and claims that respondent No.16 is his sister. He alleged that the decree obtained by the second respondent herein in O.S.No.14 of 1978 for partition, possession and other reliefs including mesne profits was put to execution and in pursuance of the final decree and determination of mesne profits, the said decree was executed in part. The decree holder realised an amount of about Rs.17,000/- leaving balance of Rs.4,856/- The application filed by the petitioner, being E.A.No.117 of 2008 under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to declare the decree as inexecutable, was dismissed under the impugned order dated 17.03.2008. Hence, this revision. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, who has strenuously contended that the circumstances, under which the petitioner was compelled to move the Court by filing the present E.A.No.117 of 2008, were not appreciated by the executing Court. Learned counsel places strong reliance upon the statement of respondent No.6 in IA, who is also seventh respondent herein, dated 17.02.1998 and based on the said sworn statement, he submits that the liability imposed on respondent No.16 was wholly unjustified and on account of her being innocent she was made to part with substantial amount of about Rs.17,000/-, as if, she was liable to pay the said amount. Learned counsel also points out several other circumstances to substantiate that no liability could have been imposed on the said respondent No.16 and the seventh respondent herein though aware of the same, has wrongfully executed the decree. 4. I have considered the aforesaid contentions and even assuming that there is any substance in those contentions, I am afraid, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, primarily, in view of the circumstance that the order of final decree in I.A.No.96 of 1995 passed on 15.09.1998 remained unchallenged by any of the parties. The final decree passed under the said application and determination of the mesne profits, therefore, attained finality. When the execution petition is filed to execute the said decree, the executing Court is bound to execute the decree, as it stands, without sitting in judgment over the correctness of the decree. By the present application E.A.No.117 of 2008 the petitioner seeks to render the said decree inexecutable by primarily contending that the decree ought not to have been passed imposing liability on respondent No.16. However, that is a matter, which the petitioner ought to agitate by filing the appeal against I.A.No.96 of 1995. Having not done so and allowed it attained finality, the order in I.A.No.96 of 1995 could not have been ignored by the executing Court while entertaining the petitioner’s application E.A.No.117 of 2008. The executing Court, therefore, has rightly appreciated the said aspect and has dismissed E.A.No.117 of 2008. I see no reason to take a different view. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the executing Court for extending equities, if entitled, in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J September 30, 2011 DSK