IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3516 OF 2011 Date:25.08.2011 Between:- Syed Raoof and another .. Petitioners And Bilquis Jahan and others .. Respondents ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India is directed against the order, dated 01.02.2011, in E.A. (SR)No.188 of 2011 in E.P.No.16 of 2010 in R.C.No.216 of 2002 on the file of III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, petition filed under Rule 23(7) of Andhra Pradesh Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960 to declare the eviction order obtained by respondent No.1/decree holder against respondent Nos.2 to 13 as illegal, null and not binding on the claim petitioners in respect of the property bearing No.17-7-48/1, to an extent admeasuring 300 sq.yards, situated at outside Yakutpura, Hyderabad, and to grant interim stay of all further proceedings and including the execution proceedings in E.P.No.16 of 2011 in R.C.No.216 of 2002 till the disposal of the claim petition, was rejected as not maintainable. 2. The petitioners herein filed a claim petition before the Executing Court claiming that they are the purchasers and possessors of property bearing MCH No.17-7-48/1 admeasuring 300 sq.yards situated at outside Yakutpura, Hyderabad. The office of the Court below returned the said petition with an objection that the property shown in the petition as well as the documents filed by the claim petitioners is not at all tallying with the E.P. schedule property. Therefore, at the request of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter was called on the Bench. 3. The objection of the office was upheld by the III Additional Rent Controller, Hyderabad in passing the impugned order. Prima facie, the claim petitioners must show that the execution petition schedule property is different and distinct from that of the premises in their occupation. There cannot be any dispute that execution proceedings can be initiated in terms of decree passed by the competent Court. When the property claimed by the petitioners is not tallying with the E.P. schedule property, the trial Court rightly rejected the claim petition. Therefore, the impugned order needs no interference by this Court and this petition is liable to be dismissed. To safeguard the interests of claim petitioners, the bailiff of Court can execute the warrant after E.P. schedule property is duly identified by the decree holder and he shall not evict the claim petitioners from the premises under their occupation if it is not E.P. schedule property. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 25th August, 2011. AMD THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3516 OF 2011 Date:25.08.2011 AMD