THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.141 OF 2008 DATED:31.12.2009 BETWEEN: Pothula Veera Krishna Rao and others … Petitioners AND Alluri Veera Venkata Naga Lakshmi Narasamamba and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.141 OF 2008 ORDER: The petitioners are Judgment Debtors (J.Drs) in E.P.No.5 of 2007. They filed E.A.No.445 of 2007 seeking a direction to first respondent (hereafter called, Decree Holder/D.Hr) to re-transfer ownership of suit schedule property and re-pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) with interest at 12% to J.Drs. By an order, dated 27.12.2007, the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, J.Drs filed instant revision petition under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Though in the Memorandum of revision, reference is not made to E.A.No.445 of 2007, there is no dispute that J.Drs filed the revision only against the said order. First respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 05.08.1999. The same being O.S.No.94 of 1992 was decreed by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur on 28.08.2000. J.Drs’ appeal being A.S.No.57 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Eluru was dismissed on 05.08.2002. D.Hr then filed E.P.No.188 of 2000 and the Court executed sale deed. In E.P., J.Dr contended that delivery of possession cannot be ordered as there is no such decree and that a charge was created in favour of a cooperative society. The objections were negatived. Aggrieved by which, they filed C.M.A.No.1 of 2004 before the District Court, which was dismissed on 02.03.2006. The C.R.P.No.3686 of 2006, which is filed by them, was also dismissed by this Court on 30.08.2006. Yet again, they filed E.A.No.445 of 2007, which was dismissed by impugned order. Learned counsel for petitioners/J.Drs submits that the impugned order directing delivery of possession is illegal and arbitrary. The lower Court has not given any reasons and therefore, is liable to be set aside. In the absence of any decree for delivery of possession, such an order cannot be based by the Court below. Per contra, learned counsel for first respondent/D.Hr submits that when the appeal filed by J.Dr was dismissed, it was proper for the trial Court to execute the sale deed as well as order delivery of possession. J.Dr filed present civil revision petition against docket order, dated 27.12.2007 giving an impression that the E.A., was dismissed without reasoned order. A copy of the lower Court order running into seven pages is placed before this Court and the said order contains reasons, and therefore, the plea that no reasons are given by the lower Court cannot be accepted. Insofar as other contentions are concerned, as rightly observed by Court below, when the appeal filed by J.Dr was dismissed, even though the lower Court merged into the same, what is executable is the decree passed by trial Court and therefore, the direction to deliver possession is sustainable. Further more, when the lower Court passed a detailed order, the petitioners approached this Court misrepresenting that a docket order was passed. On this ground alone, the civil revision petition is liable to be dismissed. After perusing the order of the Court below, this Court is convinced that there is no error in the impugned order. The civil revision petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) .12.2009 pln