HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2196 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order in E.A.No.71 of 2011 in E.A.No.305 of 2007 in E.P.No.34 of 2007 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. 2. A suit for specific performance was said to have been filed by the 1st respondent against the revision petitioner and the other respondents and the suit was said to have been decreed directing the 2nd respondent to execute a registered sale deed and was taken up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the matter ended in favour of the 1st respondent/ plaintiff. Thereafter, it is admitted that the 2nd respondent has executed a registered sale deed in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The petitioner herein, who is one of the defendants in the suit, has filed E.A.No.305 of 2007 when E.P.No.34 of 2007 was filed by the decree-holder for possession of the property arising the disputes about the executability of the decree and also the identity of the property and while the matter was pending enquiry, the present E.A.No.71 of 2011 was filed by the petitioner herein for permission to amend the contents in the petition saying that the identity of the property and also other proceedings, which were passed by the Estate Officer or not and the maintainability of the execution petition itself is not being proper since it is not binding on the petitioner as there was no decree against her. Further-more, it was her contention that under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, the executability of the decree is seriously disputed and also a further question has been raised relying upon the recitals in the registered sale deed that part of the possession of the property has been delivered to the decree holder and consequently, the present execution petition for delivery of the property does not lie at all. 3. So far as the contentions in E.A.No.305 of 2007 are concerned, at this stage it is not for consideration as no enquiry has been conducted as yet. So far as the proposed amendment sought by the petitioner is concerned, they evidently relate to the matter of evidence, where-under the executability of the decree for the several reasons including a question of fact and law can be permitted to be raised and evidence has also to be adduced by the parties to decide about the rival contentions. Therefore, the incorporation of a matter of evidence in the E.P.No.305 of 2007 rejected by the lower Court is not an irregularity or illegality calling for exercise of the revisional power of the appellate Court. I feel the ends of justice would meet if both the parties are permitted to lead oral and documentary evidence touching on all aspects which are raised in amendments and also in the original E.P.No.305 of 2007. 4. Accordingly, the revision is disposed of and in view of the long pendency of the litigation between the parties, the lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within three months. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:29.08.2011 Note: Issue C.C. by two (02) days. (B/o.) INL