THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.1926 AND 1946 OF 2010 DATED: 03-03-2011. Between T.Venkata Someswara Rao … Petitioner-J.Dr. And E.Mohan Rao …Respondent- D.Hr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.1926 AND 1946 OF 2010 COMMON ORDER: These revisions are directed aggrieved by the docket orders, dated 16-04-2010, in E.A.Nos.241 and 240 of 2010 in E.P.No.161 of 2010 in RCC 1 of 2007 respectively, on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge-cum-Rent Controller, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, whereunder and whereby the applications filed to break open the doors and locks and to provide police protection for the purpose of delivery of the property, were allowed. 2. The petitioner herein is the tenant. The respondent herein filed RCC 1 of 2007 on the file of the Rent Controller-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam District, for eviction of the petitioner herein from the petition schedule property. The Court vide order, dated 03-08-2009 allowed the petition duly evicting the tenant from the petition schedule property. Thereafter, the Decree holder filed the Execution Petition for delivery of vacant possession of the property. As the petitioner was causing obstruction for execution of warrant, the Decree holder moved an application to break open the lock of the house and handover possession of the property to him and the same was ordered. Similarly, police protection was also given for delivery of the vacant possession of the property. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner herein contended that no opportunity as required under Order XXI Rule 40 CPC is given, that against the order passed by the trial Court in RCC 1 of 2007, he filed an appeal, but due to some delay, the appeal has not been numbered, that the Executing Court is not taking up the stay of execution petition filed by him and hence, he prays to set aside the impugned order. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent contended that the appeal was not filed in time and the appellate Court has not passed any order of stay of the execution of the decree, that therefore, in the absence of any stay, the Decree holder is entitled to execute the decree as per the provisions contained in Order XXI of CPC and hence, he prays to dismiss the revision. 5. Order XXI Rule 40 has no application to the present facts of the case. The said provision lays down procedure when the judgment debtor appears or is brought before the Court. Sub-section (1) requires the Court to make inquiry and to hear the decree holder and also the judgment debtor. The affidavit filed in support of the petition by the respondents herein would disclose that when the Court Amin went to the house in question, the judgment debtor is said to have openly proclaimed that he would not vacate the premises and lock the doors in order to avoid eviction from the schedule property. Therefore, the Decree holder rightly filed an application to break open the locks to deliver the property to him. 6. So long as no stay is granted, the Executing Court can execute the decree. The decree passed by competent civil Court is for eviction of the petitioner. As he was causing obstruction, the Executing Court rightly passed an order to break open the lock of the premises in question and for effective implementation of that order, police aid was also given. Therefore, the impugned orders need no interference by this Court. 7. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. No order as to costs. --------------------- K.C.BHANU, J DATED: 03-03-2011 Hsd