THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP NO. 4315 OF 2006 Date of order: 19.8.2010 Between: Doolla Padma Raju …Petitioner and Donkina Konda and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CRP NO. 4315 OF 2006 ORDER: Revision petitioner/decree holder is aggrieved by the dismissal of EP No. 85 of 2004 in OS No. 168 of 1985 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Pithapuram under the impugned order dated 27.7.2006. A decree was passed for possession of the suit schedule property and according to the judgment debtors, the decree holders had earlier filed EP No. 19 of 1990 wherein the Ameen of the Court reported delivery of possession of the suit schedule property to the decree holders and now the present EP was again filed to seek execution of the decree. The judgment debtors filed counter and additional counter specifically alleging that in pursuance of the orders passed by the Executing Court in the first EP recording delivery of possession 30.8.1995 and full satisfaction of the decree, the earlier EP was terminated and the subsequent execution petition cannot lie. By upholding the said objection, the Executing Court dismissed the present execution petition under the impugned order. Aggrieved thereby, the present revision petition is filed by the 7th decree holder. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the earlier Execution Petition, even according to the judgment debtors, did not result in dispossession of the judgment debtors, though Ameen of the court has recorded as such. The learned counsel, therefore, submits that as long as the decree holders were not put in possession, the decree holders can always seek execution of the decree. On the ground of limitation pleaded by the judgment debtors, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the execution petition is within time, inasmuch as the decree was executed in part in the first instance and in this connection, he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court reported in Birudavolu Venkata Subbamma Vs. Mallapu Padmavathamma [1]. The learned counsel for the judgment debtors, on the contrary, contends that the earlier execution petition records delivery of possession and therefore no further execution petition is maintainable at the instance of the decree holders. I have seen the counters and additional counters filed by the judgment debtors in the present execution petition and I am satisfied that the earlier execution petition terminated itself after Executing Court recorded delivery of possession in pursuance of the report of the Ameen, on 30.8.1995. It is also not in dispute that in the earlier execution petition the report of the Ameen, as to delivery, was accepted by the decree holders by putting their signatures and thumb impressions on the said report of the Ameen. Further at no point of time the decree holders objected to the report of Ameen or to the order of the Executing Court recording delivery of possession. In law, therefore, the suit terminated in its entirety. When the Executing Court recorded full satisfaction of the decree by recording delivery of possession, nothing further remains to be executed and even assuming and accepting that the judgment debtors have again come in possession of the suit schedule property, the only remedy for the decree holders is to file a fresh suit, but they cannot perpetually go on seeking execution of the decree when the decree itself stood satisfied. I, therefore, do not find any error warranting interference with the impugned order. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 19.8.2010 KR [1] 2003 (5) ALD 766