THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4928 of 2009 Date: 23-10-2009 Between 1. Gurram Venkanna and 15 others … Petitioners/Respondents/ Judgment-debtors 1 to 7, 9, 10, 12 to 17 and 18 and Vali Ahmed … Respondent/Petitioner/ Decree-holder THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.4928 of 2009 Oral Order: Heard Sri P.Rajagopal Reddy, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri B.Anjaneyulu, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the docket order, dated 18-9-2008, in E.P.No.9 of 2007 in O.S.No.45 of 1998, passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Gudivada, Krishna district directing to issue delivery warrant by 30-10-2009. 3. The petitioners herein are the defendants/Judgment- debtors 1 to 7, 9, 10, 12 to 17 and 18 and the respondent is the plaintiff/decree-holder in the suit before the Court below. 4. It appears that the judgment-debtors were found not diligent on various occasions in prosecuting their case. As a measure of caution, the Court below awarded costs also to be paid to the decree-holder and on the date fixed for compliance of the said order, it was reported that the order to pay costs also was not complied with by them. 5. As could be seen from the record, it appears that the judgment-debtors have not been diligent on good number of occasions after receiving notices in the E.P. proceedings. However, they had filed two applications E.A.Nos.426 and 427 of 2009 seeking to set aside the ex parte order dated 02-9-2009 in E.P.No.9 of 2007 and to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.9 of 2007, respectively. 6. The Court below did not pass any orders in those applications. 7. It is contended by the learned Counsel appearing for the decree-holder that time is not ripe for proceeding pursuant to the orders dated 18-9-2009 passed by the Court below, whereby the issuance of delivery warrant was ordered by 30-10-2009 and further, the present revision petition is premature, inasmuch as the judgment-debtors ought to have pressed the Court below to hear the applications E.A.Nos.426 and 427 of 2009 and only in the event of any adverse orders being passed, they could and should have approached this Court by way of a revision. 8. I agree with the said contention of the learned Counsel for the decree-holder. As already pointed out, E.A.Nos.426 and 427 of 2009 for the same relief have already been filed and pending before the Court below for consideration and no orders have been passed yet. Therefore, it is not desirable for this Court to interfere at this stage, inasmuch as the alternative remedy had already been availed of by the judgment-debtors by filing the above execution applications. 9. Therefore, suffice it to dispose of this civil revision petition, with a direction to the Court below to dispose of E.A.Nos.426 and 427 of 2009 with utmost expedition, in any event on or before 17-11-2009 by passing final orders. 10. In the meanwhile, all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order dated 18-9-2009 are suspended. 11. It should be deemed that both the parties are put on notice about this order and consequently, no further notice need be given to the parties. 12. With the above observations and directions, the civil revision petition is disposed of, at the stage of admission. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 23rd October, 2009. Note:- Issue C.C. in four days. (B/o) Ak