THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 6284 of 2009 Dated: 10.03.2010 Between: Kolimi Razak Saheb and 12 others. … Petitioner And Kotharammanagari Kesava Reddy … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 6284 of 2009 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.11.2009 in E.P.No.20 of 2007 in O.S.No.58 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Guntakal. The respondent herein is the plaintiff who filed O.S.No.58 of 1984 seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. Though the suit was dismissed, the plaintiff’s appeal was allowed and a decree was granted in his favour by Judgment dated 18.10.2001. During the pendency of the appeal, the sole defendant died and the revision petitioners were added as his legal representatives. Pursuant to the Judgment and decree passed by the appellate Court, the plaintiff/decree holder filed E.P.No.20 of 2007 to evict the revision petitioners/Judgment debtors and deliver the vacant possession of the schedule property. The judgment debtors filed a counter raising two objections. Firstly, since some of the legal representatives of the deceased sole defendant were not brought on record, the execution petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of all necessary parties. Another objection raised was that the execution petition was barred by limitation. Before the Court below, the decree holder got himself examined as P.W.1 whereas on behalf of the judgment debtors R.Ws.1 and 2 were examined. On appreciation of the material available on record, the Court below rejected both the objections raised by the judgment debtors and allowed E.P.No.20 of 2007 by order dated 27.11.2009 directing delivery of the scheduled property on payment of process by 24.12.2009. The said order is under challenge in this revision petition by the judgment debtors. Having heard the learned counsel for both the parties, I do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order under revision. As rightly held by the Court below, except a vague plea that some of the legal representatives were not brought on record, no particulars were furnished and no case could be made out by the judgment debtors to show that the execution petition was not maintainable for non-joinder of the necessary parties. Similarly, since the decree was granted by virtue of the judgment of the Appellate Court on 18.01.2001, the execution petition fled in November, 2006 was well within the limitation. Hence, the Court below rightly allowed the execution petition and the order under revisions warrants no interference by this Court. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances, the judgment debtors/revision petitioners are granted three months time from today to deliver the vacant possession of the E.P. schedule property to the decree holder, failing which it is open to the decree holder to take necessary steps in accordance with law. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 10.03.2010 KLP