IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.R.P.NO.4072 OF 2010 Date:25-01-2011 Between:- Indlamuri Mastan Rao and another .. Petitioners And Tammisetti Seshagiri Rao and another .. Respondents ORDER:- This application is filed by the petitioners, who are the third parties, contending that the decree passed by the lower Court in O.S.No.317 of 1999 is not valid and executable since the original owners of the property died during the pendency of the suit and as legal representatives were not brought on record, the decree holders are said to have filed the application for delivery of the property without legal basis and the lower Court has ordered delivery of the property. Though the affidavit filed on the claim of the petitioners does not disclose that they have purchased the property, the particulars of the date of the purchase of the property itself admitted by the counsel for the petitioners that it was held pending this suit. It is also contended by the counsel for the respondents that all the persons who have purchased the property from the original defendants have been added as parties and the contested decree has been passed. The petitioners’ main claim is that without notice to them, they are likely to be dispossessed from the property and therefore, they have come up in revision before this Court. Incidentally, it is to be mentioned that in A.S.No.896 of 2008, the petitioners themselves got impleaded as parties to the proceedings against the judgment in the original suit and application of stay is said to be moved but that was not granted. Therefore, as matter stands before the lower Court and the Executing Court, the petitioners are not the parties and in such circumstances, the exercise of a revisional power at the request of the petitioners, who are not parties in the execution proceedings, or before the lower Court does not arise. A revision can be entertained only between the parties to the proceedings whereas an appeal can also be entertained from the parties, who are not the parties in the original suit, with the leave of the Court. No such provision is made for entertaining of the revision before this Court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that as the decree is sought to be executed violating the provision under Order 21 Rule XXXVI C.P.C. and as no notice is served on the person in possession of the property, the petitioners are forced to approach the revisional Court for the relief. Evidently, in A.S.No.896 of 2008, the petitioners could have moved the appellate Court for necessary relief when once they were added as parties to the suit when the execution proceedings are pending and when there is a threat of dispossession but no such application is filed. But however, it is not the claim of the decree holders that the petitioners herein are in possession of the property. It is only a claim made by the petitioners that they are in actual physical possession and enjoyment of the property. In such circumstances, the petitioners are not left without any remedy. As can be seen from the contentions of the respondents, the implead petition A.S.M.P.No.214 of 2009 was allowed and subsequently, A.S.M.P.No.383 of 2010 was filed by the petitioners along with other parties for stay of execution of the decree of the lower Court on 04-03-2010. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that by order dated 25-03-2010, the said A.S.M.P. was ordered to be posted along with A.S.No.896 of 2008. Therefore, when once the petitioners are added as parties to the appeal, their remedy and right is to approach the appellate Court for necessary relief of stay of execution of the decree and not to come up by a separate application attacking the executing Court orders under revision. It is more so for the reason that the stay petition is still pending and is posted along with the appeal. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the petitioners are at liberty to approach the appellate Court for necessary relief since the E.P. is said to have been filed after the filing of the stay petition in the appeal. So far as the property in possession of the petitioners is concerned, there shall be a status quo for a period of ten (10) days. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____​________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 25th January, 2011 AMD