HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2093 of 2008 Date: September 14, 2011 Between: 1. M. Bharati & 6 others … Petitioners and 1. Fortune Infrastructure (I) (P) Ltd., rep. by its Managing Director T.C. Ashok, rep. by his Power of Attorney Holder T.J. Prakash Rao and 39 others. … Respondents * * * HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2093 of 2008 O R D E R: The petitioners have already filed claim petition E.A. No.88 of 2008 in E.P. No.37 of 2008 in O.S. No.1402 of 1996 before the court below apart from their other applications. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking leave of the Court to question the order of the court below in E.A. No.75 of 2008 dated 26.3.2008 directing advocate-commissioner to demarcate the boundaries with the help of Deputy Director, Survey, Settlement and Land Records, Hyderabad, over the properties shown in the schedule of E.A. No.75 of 2008. 2. The primary grievance of the petitioners in this revision is that though they have filed claim petitions, they are not shown as parties to the order appointing advocate-commissioner for survey of the schedule land. It is also contended that while the basic decree in O.S. No.1402 of 1996 is for an extent of Ac.14.39 guntas, the present E.A. schedule property is only Ac.3.39 guntas and as such there is discrepancy in the extent. This Court, while granting leave to the petitioner on 24.4.2008 and admitting the C.R.P., directed that the survey as ordered by the court below may go on, but the petitioners shall not be dispossessed. The said order is in operation as on today. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that in pursuance of the orders of the court below and the interim orders of this Court, the survey work has been completed and the matters are pending with the court below for consideration not only in the claim petition filed by the petitioners, but the other claim petitions as well. 4. In view of the fact that the survey as ordered by the court below and as permitted by this Court under the interim orders as above having been carried out, nothing further needs to be adjudicated in this revision petition. Since the petitioners’ claim petition is pending adjudication before the court below, the right, title and interest of the petitioners would be adjudicated upon in the said E.A. in terms of Order XXI Rules 97, 99 read with Rule 101 C.P.C. and as long as the claim petition is pending before the court below, the court below cannot execute the decree and as such the apprehension of the petitioners as to dispossession also does not survive. In the pending claim petition, it is open for the petitioners to raise all their contentions on facts as permissible in law, including the correctness or otherwise of the survey which has been conducted in pursuance of the impugned order herein. 5. The Civil Revision Petition is therefore dismissed relegating the petitioners to agitate their contentions in the claim petition E.A. No.88 of 2008 filed by them before the court below and survey conducted as above shall be subject to the final orders in the claim petition referred to above. 6. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Date: September 14, 2011. BSB