THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1685 of 2010 Dated:14.06.2010 Between: Abbisetti Satyanarayana. ...Petitioner And Palaparthi Dharmajirao, And others. ...Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1685 of 2010 ORDER: The Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, decreed a suit, being O.S.No.113 of 1980, filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 against other respondents for partition of joint family properties (suit was initially filed as pauper suit). Preliminary decree was passed on 26.09.1987 followed by final decree dated 23.08.2006. It became final. E.P.No.138 of 2006 was taken out by respondent Nos.1 and 2. At a belated stage petitioner herein filed E.A.No.149 of 2009 purportedly under Order XXI Rule 97 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). He contends that he cannot be evicted from land admeasuring Acs.2.00 which is one of the items of the property. He also alleged that he had filed A.T.C.No.10 of 2007 before the Tenancy Tribunal, Kovvur, and obtained ex parte order against his landlords from forcibly evicting him. The same was marked as Ex.A1. The trial Court having come to conclusion that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are not parties to proceedings before the Tenancy Tribunal, being A.T.C.No.10 of 2007, dismissed the application, aggrieved by which, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of CPC. There is no dispute that when the petitioner filed A.T.C.No.10 of 2007 seeking declaration that he is protected tenant under the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956, and that he cannot be evicted, he did not implead respondent Nos.1 and 2 who had already filed O.S.No.113 of 1980 against the other co sharers of the joint family property. Therefore, as rightly observed by the Court below the order of the Tenancy Tribunal is not binding on them and decree holders cannot be prevented from executing their final partition decree. In that view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Civil Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed. ____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 14.06.2010 vs