THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3325 OF 2010 DT.06.08.2010 Between: Gottam Venkateswara Reddy …….Petitioner Vs. Majeti Lakshmi Nagamma and eleven others ……………..Respondents O R D E R: This revision petition is filed assailing the docket order passed in E.P.No.21 of 2009 in O.S.No.19 of 2002, dated 14.07.2010 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurazala, wherein the court below ordered for police aid and also for delivery of item No.1 of the schedule property, which belongs to the revision petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the suit, which was filed for partition is a collusive one, the exparte decree cannot be enforced against the revision petitioner. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on going through the material placed before this court, it is seen that against the exparte order, dated 17.02.2003 passed in O.S.No.19 of 2002 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Gurajala, the petitioner has already filed an application to set aside the exparte decree and thereafter a final decree was passed on 21.08.2007, allotting the property to respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein. The said suit was filed for partition of the suit schedule property into five equal shares and to allot two such shares to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein and in pursuance of the final decree proceedings, the court below is going to effect delivery of possession of the schedule property with police aid. Hence, the present revision petition is filed. Pending revision, an application seeking to stay all further proceedings in E.P.No.21 of 2009 in O.S.No.19 of 2002 was filed by the petitioner. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the court below, he has got an alternative remedy of appeal. Hence, I do not want to go into the merits of the case and I see no reason to interfere with the order of the court below. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to avail an alternative remedy of appeal. No order as to costs. ________________ B.PRAKASH RAO J., Dt.06.08.2010 tjs