HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 688 OF 2010 Between: Chelluri Nagamani W/o Srinivas Rao and four others ..... PETITIONERS AND 1. Gedala Babu Rao S/o late Rami Naidu and one another .....RESPONDENTS ORAL ORDER: The order under challenge in this revision is the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Rajam in E.A.No. 49 of 2009 in E.P.No. 3 of 2003 in O.S.No. 115 of 1994 dated 21.4.2009. The petitioners herein are the daughters of the judgment debtor. The first respondent filed O.S.No. 115 of 1994 seeking a money decree against the second respondent. The suit was decreed. The first respondent- decree holder filed E.P.No. 3 of 2003 to bring the land, of an extent of Ac. 2.39 cents, to sale. The decree holder purchased the said property in a court auction, and the sale was confirmed by the court below. The second respondent- decree holder filed E.A.No. 49 of 2009 requesting the executing Court to deliver possession of the schedule property by evicting the judgment debtor from the land in terms of Order 21 Rule 95 CPC. The Court ordered delivery of the property by issuing warrant dated 21.4.2009. The Amin is said to have gone over to the property to deliver possession thereof to the second respondent-decree holder and the petitioners herein are said to have handed over a copy of their objections, to the said delivery, to him. The Court below perused the objections filed along with the Amin report and rejected the same on the ground that the objector was neither the decree holder nor the purchaser of the property and hence did not have locus standi for raising objections. Sri D. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, would submit that the Court below, without even affording the petitioners an opportunity of being heard and without putting the petitioners herein on notice, had summarily rejected the objections; and that such denial of opportunity fell foul of the requirement of Order 21 Rule 95 CPC. On being asked as what were the objections raised by the petitioners herein regarding delivery of the possession of the land in question, Sri D. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that the petitioners had filed a partition suit against the second respondent-judgment debtor seeking partition of the property in the year 2004. It is necessary to note that the petitioners herein are all daughters of the second respondent-judgment debtor. The money suit was filed in the year 1994 and on the suit being decreed, an EP was filed in the year 2003. The suit for partition was filed in the year 2004 one year after the EP was filed. It is evident therefore, that the alleged suit for partition is filed only to ensure that the property in question is not delivered to the decree holder though she had purchased the suit property in the Court auction and sale was also confirmed in her favour. The revisional jurisdiction is not to be exercised for mere asking and save manifest injustice and patent illegality, this Court would not interfere. I am satisfied that the facts of the present case do not necessitate interference. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, dismissed. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J DATE: 09.09.2010 KA ... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD copies.