IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTIETH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Revision Petition No.299 of 2011 Between: Yanala Jayamma and 5 others .. Petitioners AND Kanukuntla Ramanujamma and 9 others .. Respondents ORDER: Heard Sri V. L. Surendra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri A. Rajasekhar Reddy, learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The order passed by the Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, dated 26-10-2009 in E.A.No.20 of 2003 in E.P.No.15 of 2002 in O.S.No.125 of 1994 on his file was attempted to be challenged by the revision petitioners by way of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. The said E.A.No.20 of 2003 is an application under Order XXI Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The impugned order recorded that in the light of a Full Bench decision of this Court in Gurram Seetharamreddy v. Gunti Yashodha (2004 (6) ALT 111), the orders passed under Rule 58 (3) and Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 CPC have to be challenged by way of regular appeals under Section 96 and not by way of Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Accordingly, the Principal District Judge, Nalgonda, directed return of the papers for presentation before the proper Court. The revision petitioners are before this Court with this revision obviously on the understanding that the directions to present before proper Court might have been a direction to present the matter before some other Court, whereas the Principal District Court, Nalgonda, itself is the appropriate Court of Appeal. The principle that an order like the order sought to be challenged is subject to challenge by way of a regular appeal only is not in dispute and if the Principal District Court, Nalgonda, is the Court having jurisdiction to entertain and determine regular appeals from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, the same Court will have to receive the papers, if the revision petitioners convert the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal into regular appeal and present the papers to the Court. The appeal then has to be entertained and determined by the said Court on merits in accordance with law, if it is otherwise in order. Insofar as the period during which the proceedings are pending before this Court in this Civil Revision Petition and the period spent since the filing of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and its return are concerned, it is needless to state that the revision petitioners may have to approach the Appellate Court with an appropriate application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which, of course, will be considered on its own merits, with all sympathy and compassion that such a request deserves, by the Court. Accordingly, the revision petitioners are permitted to represent the matter before the Court to which appeals lie from the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Nakrekal, after conversion into a regular appeal along with an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 20-04-2011 Ksn