IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Date:13.04.2010. C.R.P.NO.6144 OF 2009. Between: B.Vimalakumari .. Petitioner/third party in E.A.No.645/2009 AND B.Narasimhappa (died) and others ..Respondents/Decree Holders and Judgment Debtor ORDER: This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 02.12.2009 passed in E.P.No.174 of 2009 in R.C.No.2 of 1997 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur. The facts in brief are as under:- Respondent Nos.2 and 3 herein filed R.C.No.2 of 1997 for eviction of respondent No.4 from the schedule premises and the same was ordered on 30.09.1997. Pursuant thereto, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed E.P.No.3 of 1998 for execution of the eviction order. During the pendency of the said execution proceedings, the revision petitioner, who claims to be in possession of the schedule property, filed O.S.No.262 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Hindupur against the respondent No.4 herein and 11 others seeking partition and separate possession of 1/10th share in the schedule property of E.P.No.3 of 1998. The said suit was decreed exparte on 27.04.2004. However, at the instance of the defendants therein, the expare decree was set aside and the suit was reopened. Thereafter, on 24.08.2009, the said suit was dismissed for default and the application made by the plaintiff therein/revision petitioner for restoration of the said suit is still pending. While so, the respondents 2 and 3 herein filed a fresh E.P., being E.P.No.174 of 2009 against the 4th respondent herein seeking delivery of vacant possession of the schedule property and the Court below, by order dated 28.10.2009 directed delivery warrant returnable by 05.12.2009. At that stage, the revision petitioner filed E.A.No.645 of 2009 under Order 21 Rules 97, 99 and 101 C.P.C. to set aside the delivery order dated 28.10.2009 claiming that she had 1/10th share in the E.P. schedule property. While the said E.A. is pending, at the instance of the respondents 2 and 3 herein E.P.No.174 of 2009 was advanced to 02.12.2009 and a fresh delivery warrant was issued. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Heard both parties. The material available on record shows that E.A.No.645 of 2009 was filed by the revision petitioner on 24.11.2009 itself to set aside the delivery order dated 28.10.2009. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner without deciding E.A.No.645 of 2009 filed under Order 21 Rules 97 and 99 the Court below ought not to have issued fresh delivery warrant. Hence, the impugned order dated 02.12.2009 is hereby set aside and the revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the Court below to dispose of E.A.No.645 of 2009 after hearing both the parties as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Thereafter, it is open to the Court below to decide E.P.No.174 of 2009 following due process of law. C.R.P. is disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________​_ G. ROHINI, J 13th April 2010 AMD