THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5798 of 2011 DT.30.12.2011 Between: Seerapu Ramana Kumari … Petitioner And Betha Anasuyamma and others … Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner:Sri V Venugopala Rao Counsel for respondents: The Court made the following ORDER: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5798 of 2011 ORDER :- This revision is filed questioning the order dated 29.11.2011 in E.P. No. 118 of 2011 in O.S. No. 1076 of 1999 passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, in allowing the petition filed under Order 21 Rule 11 (1) Schedule-1 of CPC to deliver the possession of plots. The revision petitioner is second judgment debtor. The plaintiffs/respondents 2 and 3 herein have filed a suit in O.S. No. 1076 of 1999 for partition of plaint property into four equal shares and to allot one such share to each of them and to put them into separate possession and for costs of the suit. The Court below on 21.12.2000 passed a preliminary decree for partition of suit property into four shares and to allot one such share each to the plaintiffs and defendants. The plaintiffs filed a petition under Order 21 Rule 11 (1) Schedule 1 of CPC in E.P. No. 118 of 2011 to deliver the possession of plots marked as A & B along with passage as shown in the final decree plan. The Court below on consideration of the matter, allowed the said petition with a direction to depute the amin for the delivery of the plots A and B of the schedule property to the decree holders respectively in terms of the final decree as required under Order 21 Rule 35 of CPC by 6.1.2012. Questioning the said order, the present revision is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner mainly contended that there is no specific decree for delivery of the possession and without considering the said fact, the Court below erred in allowing the petition directing delivery of plots to decree holders. The said contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted inasmuch as partition of the property into four shares and allot one such share each to the plaintiffs and defendants means to deliver the share fallen to the decree holders. There are absolutely no reasons to interfere with the order under revision. The revision petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________ V ESWARAIAH,J DATE:30.12.2011 tvk THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V ESWARAIAH C.R.P. NO. 5798 of 2011 DT.30.12.2011