THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3658 of 2010 ORDER: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No.117 of 1995 in the Court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ongole against the 2nd respondent and the petitioner herein for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale. The suit was decreed and after the decree became final, the 1st respondent filed E.P. under Rule 34 of Order 21 C.P.C. with a prayer to direct the 2nd respondent to execute the sale deed and if he fails to do so, the Court may execute the sale deed. The petitioner is the daughter of the 2nd respondent. She filed O.S.No.114 of 1995 against her father, the 2nd respondent herein, in respect of the same property, for specific performance. Stating that on the strength of a collusive decree obtained therein, the petitioner is obstructing the execution of the decree in O.S.No.117 of 1995, the 1st respondent made her a party in the E.P. The executing Court allowed the E.P., through order, dated 24.07.2010. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent suffered a decree for specific performance of an agreement of sale. He took every possible step to defeat the rights of the 1st respondent. Even while O.S.No.117 of 1995 was pending, he got O.S.No.114 of 1995 filed through his daughter, the petitioner herein. It is but natural that when the sole plaintiff and the defendant in that suit colluded with each other, a decree ensued and it was not challenged. The 2nd respondent contested O.S.No.117 of 1995 and after thorough discussion, the trial Court decreed the suit. The appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent was dismissed and the decree became final. It needs to be mentioned that by the time O.S.No.117 of 1995 was taken up for hearing, O.S.No.114 of 1995 was decreed and the same was made part of the record. The trial Court held that the said decree is not binding upon the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner did not choose to challenge the decree in O.S.No.117 of 1995, once there was an observation pertaining to the enforceability of the decree obtained by her. The executing Court took note of the contentions of all the parties and arrived at a conclusion that the 2nd respondent is under the obligation to execute the decree, de hors the existence of a decree between himself and his daughter, the petitioner herein. It has taken correct view of the matter and no interference is warranted with the order under revision. Therefore, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 04.08.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No. 3658 of 2010 Date: 04.08.2011 JSU