IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.592 of 2010 Between: Smt. K. V. Rukkamma and three others. ... PETITIONERS AND Mr. Shashidhar Raju and three others. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Vinay Shekar Gunnala Mr. Narsing Rao Nandikonda Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. B. Vijaysen Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision is preferred by the third party claimants aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim petition being E.A.No.152 of 2008 by the learned III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, under the impugned order dated 23.12.2009. 2. The present revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was admitted on 18.02.2010 and interim stay was granted. Now the respondent has filed CMP.No.1183 of 2010 seeking vacation of the interim order and apart from the merits, the maintainability of the revision is questioned. 3. Heard both sides. 4. It is now well settled that the order of the executing Court dismissing the claim petition under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC has the force of a decree and if any party is aggrieved thereby, the only remedy available is to question the said order in a regular appeal under Section 96 CPC. The present revision under Section 115 CPC is, therefore, clearly not maintainable as held by this Court in GURRAM SEETHARAM REDDY v. GUNTI YASHODA[1]. Therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the revision was bonafide filed and on being advised that the said remedy is available and now as the revision is liable to be dismissed, he may be granted reasonable opportunity to approach the appellate Court. Learned counsel for the respondent undertakes that for a period of two (2) weeks from today he shall not take further steps for execution of decree in E.P.No.125 of 2006 in O.S.No.460of 2003 on the file of the III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 6. The petitioner is, therefore, granted two (2) weeks time to approach the appellate Court against the order impugned herein. Registry is directed to return the certified copy of the impugned order to enable the learned counsel for the petitioner to present an appeal before the appropriate appellate Court. The petitioner shall be free to move the appellate Court for appropriate interim relief, if and when he approaches and files the appeal. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed subject to above observations. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J March 9, 2010 Note: Furnish C.C. of the order by 12.03.2010 (B/o) DSK [1] AIR 2005 AP 95 (FB)