THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2010 Dated: 01.02.2011 Between: Gandiraju Suryanarayana Raju, Srikakulam District and another. … Petitioners And Vanguri Venkata Adinarayana Kishore and another. … Respondents THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 4434 of 2010 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 25.08.2010 in E.P.No.201 of 2010 on the file of the Court of the Special Officer (Tenancy)-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. The facts, in brief, are as under: The respondents herein filed A.T.C.No.9 of 2003 on the file of the Special Officer (Tenancy)-cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku under Section 13 of A.P (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 as amended by Act 39 of Act, 1974 seeking eviction of the petitioners herein from the petition schedule lands alleging that the petitioners herein had committed default in payment of rents. The petitioners herein contested the said proceedings contending that there was no default in payment of rents. After hearing both the parties, the Special Officer by order dated 22.10.2007 dismissed A.T.C.No.9 of 2003. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents herein filed A.T.A.No.25 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal (District Judge), West Godavari at Eluru. By judgment dated 16.06.2010, the said appeal was allowed and the petitioners herein were directed to put the landlord in possession of the land in question within two months. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners herein filed C.R.P.No.3635 of 2010, which was dismissed by order dated 20.08.2010. Thereafter, the respondents herein filed E.P.No.201 of 2010 for delivery of the schedule property by evicting the petitioners herein. The learned Special Officer- cum-Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku on 25.08.2010 passed order for issuance of delivery warrant. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners vehemently contended that the Court below committed a grave error in issuing delivery warrant without notice to the respondents (petitioners herein). It is contended that the said order is vitiated by exceeding the jurisdiction conferred under law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. It is also contended that the impugned order which was not supported by any reasons is unsustainable and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside on that ground also. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents while justifying the order under revision contended that the same warrants no interference. It is to be noticed that the eviction was ordered by the Appellate Court by judgment dated 16.06.2010 and E.P.No.201 of 2010 was filed immediately thereafter in August, 2010. Though the petitioners herein preferred C.R.P.No.3635 of 2010 against the judgment of the appellate Court directing eviction, the said revision petition was dismissed by this Court on 20.08.2010. The order impugned in this revision petition came to be passed thereafter on 25.08.2010. As per order 21 Rule 22 of C.P.C, where an application for execution is made within two years of the date of the decree, notice to the person against whom execution is applied is not mandatory. Hence, the order under revision cannot be held to be erroneous merely on the ground that there was no notice to the petitioners herein. However, learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as there was standing crop on the land in question, the impugned order which was straight away passed directing delivery of possession was unjustified and unwarranted. The fact that by the date of the impugned order there was standing crop has not been disputed by the respondents. However, the learned counsel for the respondents while placing before this Court a certificate dated 22.12.2010 issued by the Village Revenue Officer, submitted that by virtue of the interim order granted by this Court in this revision, the petitioners continued in possession and harvested the crop which was existing on the date of the impugned order. Since, the crop was already harvested, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the petitioners are bound to deliver the vacant possession forthwith. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners could not dispute the fact that the petitioners had harvested the crop, it is submitted that since the next crop has already been transplanted and the petitioners have also deposited a sum of Rs.38,400/- in the Court of the Special Officer (Tenancy)-cum Principal Junior Civil Judge in A.T.C.No.32 of 2007 towards makta payable for the year 2010- 2011, if the possession is directed to be delivered at this stage, the petitioners would suffer irretrievable injury. The learned counsel further stated that the vacant possession of the land in question would be delivered soon after the crop is harvested. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petitioners request and contended that the action of the petitioners in transplanting the next crop is nothing but obstructing due course of justice and that it also amounts to Contempt of Court. In support of the said submission, the learned counsel had relied upon Smt. Sarojini v. Imamsab Dastagir Saheb Nalaband and others[1] Admittedly, the order under revision directing delivery of possession was passed by the Court below without hearing the respondents/petitioners herein. Hence, instead of expressing any opinion on the rival claims made by the parties, I deem it appropriate to direct the Court below to hear both the parties and pass appropriate orders on merits in E.P.No.201 of 2010. Accordingly, the order under revision dated 25.08.2010 is hereby set aside and the revision petition is disposed of permitting the revision petitioners to file their counter in E.P.No.201 of 2010 on or before 11.02.2011. Thereafter, the court below shall pass appropriate orders after making the necessary enquiry in accordance with law on or before 05.03.2011. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _______________ G. ROHINI, J. Date: 01.02.2011 Note: Issue C.C. in 2 days. B/o KLP [1] 1999 Crl.L.J 4361.