THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3784 OF 2011 Dated: 01.12.2011 Between : Smt. Renuka … Petitioner And C.Selvaraj and another … Respondents The Court made the following:- THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 3784 OF 2011 O R D E R: This revision petition is preferred against the order dated 30.08.2011 passed by the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District in E.P.No.12 of 2011 in O.S.No.427 of 2007, which reads as under: “Petitioners and Judgment Debtor No.2 called present. Heard both sides. The Judgment Debtor No.2 is directed to allow the petitioners to stay in the premises and return their utensils until enquiry. Meanwhile for ﬁling counter, call on 13.09.2011.” The facts in brief are as under:- The 1st respondent herein is admittedly a tenant of the premises bearing No.3-145/10, Singaipally Village, Shameerpet Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. He ﬁled O.S.No.427 of 2007 against the revision petitioner, owner of the house and her husband (arrayed as respondent No.2 herein), for perpetual injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiﬀ’s possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed by judgment dated 15.04.2011. Thereafter, the 1st respondent herein/decree holder ﬁled E.P.No.12 of 2011 in O.S.No.427 of 2007 for arrest of the revision petitioner alleging that in spite of the decree in O.S.No.427 of 2007, she along with unsocial elements had illegally entered into the premises and forcibly evicted him from the suit premises. It appears that notice was issued in E.P.No.12 of 2011 and the revision petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent herein appeared before the Court below on 30.08.2011. On the same day, the order under Revision came to be passed by the Court below directing the revision petitioner to allow the 1st respondent herein to stay in the premises and return their utensils. Aggrieved by the same, the present Revision Petition is filed. It is pleaded before this Court by the revision petitioner that in fact after the suit (O.S.No.427 of 2007) was decreed, there was a settlement between the parties on 17.07.2011 and in terms of the said settlement, the 1st respondent/the plaintiﬀ- decree holder vacated the premises in question on receipt of Rs.50,000/- from the revision petitioner. It is contended that the execution proceedings were initiated suppressing the real facts and misrepresenting that he was forcibly evicted from the suit premises. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is not disputed before this Court that though notices were served on the respondents in E.P.No.12 of 2011, no opportunity was given to the revision petitioner to ﬁle her counter opposing the execution proceedings. Moreover, even according to the decree holder-1st respondent herein, the revision petitioner is in actual possession of the suit premises. Therefore, the Court below was not justiﬁed in straightaway directing to put the decree holder in possession. Virtually, it amounted to allowing the E.P. In the facts and circumstances noticed above, particularly, having regard to the plea of the revision petitioner that after the suit was decreed, the matter was settled between the parties and the decree holder has voluntarily vacated the suit premises, the order under revision is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order under Revision is hereby set aside and the Revision Petition is disposed of permitting the revision petitioner to ﬁle her counter in E.P.No.12 of 2011 in O.S.No.427 of 2007 on or before 17.12.2011 after serving a copy of the same on the 1st respondent herein. Thereafter, the Court below shall hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks. No costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 01.12.2011 Note: Issue C.C. by tomorrow. B/o Ivd/KLP