THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V. ESWARAIAH C.R.P.No.1885 of 2011 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the alleged licensee, who suffered a decree, dated 02-09-1996 in the suit in O.S.No.153 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional District Munsiff, Guntur, filed by the respondents herein for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner herein filed A.S.No.152 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Guntur and the same was dismissed on 14-03- 2001. Thereafter, the petitioner failed to deliver possession of the suit schedule property and on the other hand, it filed I.A.No.927 of 2005 in A.S.No.152 of 1996 seeking further time, which was granted upto 31-03- 2009. As the petitioner failed to deliver possession, the respondents herein E.P.No.822 of 2009. It is stated that notice could not be served on the petitioner herein and therefore, substitute service was taken by way of paper publication and the petitioner failed to appear and as such, ex-parte order was passed on 11-03-2010. To set aside the ex-parte order, dated 11-03-2010, the petitioner herein filed E.A.No.606 of 2010 in E.P.No.822 of 2009 in O.S.No.153 of 1992. The court below vide its order, dated 23-03-2011, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. I have perused the material on record. It is not in dispute that the judgment and decree of the trial court has become final and in fact, the petitioner sought for extension of time, which was also granted, but the petitioner failed to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule property. In fact, the order passed on 11-03-2010 is revisable order. As the petitioner got a remedy under Order XXI Rule 106 CPC, it filed E.A.No.606 of 2010 to set aside the ex-parte order, dated 11-03-2010. The court below, after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, dismissed the said application holding that the said application is filed only to defeat the decree passed in A.S.No.152 of 1996 and as such, the same is not maintainable either under law or on facts. I am of the opinion that the order passed in E.P.No.822 of 2009 is in conformity with the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and, therefore, the objections taken by the petitioner are untenable. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the court below, after hearing both sides and after considering the material on record, rightly dismissed the said application and as such, I do not find any infirmity legal or otherwise in the impugned order, so as to call for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. However, in view of the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to grant some time to the petitioner to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondents, the petitioner is granted time upto 08-11-2011 to vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property, subject to the condition that it shall file an undertaking before the Executing Court that it would vacate and handover vacant possession of the suit schedule property to the respondents on or before 08-11-2011. __________ 16-09-2011 Prv