HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5934 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, in E.P.No.117 of 2010 in O.S.No.222 of 2004, dated 10.8.2010, overruling the objections of the revision petitioners-judgment debtors. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that a suit for possession was decreed directing the petitioners-judgment debtors to vacate the schedule property and deliver possession to the decree holder. Since the petitioners-judgment debtors did not choose to vacate the schedule property, the Decree Holder filed E.P.No.78 of 2006 under Order 21 Rule 35 CPC and in that, E.As No.417, 418 and 419 of 2006 were filed seeking an order to break open the locks of the house in the schedule property, to grant police aid, and to disconnect electricity connection. But the said EAs were dismissed on the basis of the report of the field assistant that the 2nd Judgment debtor caused obstruction for execution of delivery warrant. The petitioners- Judgment debtors raised an objection that it is incumbent on the decree holder to file an application under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC for removal of obstruction but without doing so, he cannot file the present E.P. and that the decree holder purchased an extent of Ac.7.22 ½ cents and out of that, the schedule in the present E.P. and schedule in E.P.No.116 of 2006, which was filed along with the present E.P., are part and parcel of the above extent and unless a Court Commissioner is appointed to get the property identified with the assistance of the surveyor, it is not possible to take delivery of possession by the decree holder. On dismissal of the said E.As., E.P.No.78 of 2006 was kept in abeyance till the decree holder filed the present application viz., E.P.No.117 of 2010 under Order 21 Rule 22 and 35 CPC directly though there was an obstruction by the judgment debtors as observed by the Court below while passing orders in E.A Nos.417, 418 and 419 of 2006. Admittedly, the decree holder filed the present E.P. withdrawing the earlier E.P.No.78 of 2008. The present E.P. was filed under Order 21 Rules 22 & 35 CPC as there is no obstruction by the judgment debtors. It is the stage of issuance of notice to the person against whom execution is applied for requiring him to show cause why the decree should not be executed against him. If there is any obstruction or objection from the Judgment debtors, it is for the executing Court to consider the same and pass necessary orders. In view of the same, it can be said that at this stage, there is no need to file petitions to remove obstructions under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC. Therefore, I feel that the order of the Court below does not warrant any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ Justice A. Gopal Reddy Date: 21st January, 2011 Nn. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No:5934 OF 2010 21.1.2011