IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.148 of 2006 Between: Gudavalli Veeranna ..... PETITIONER(S) AND The Andhra Geeravana Vidyalaya Sangham @ Andhra Geervana Vidya Peetham, Kovvur, rep by its President and others .....RESPONDENT(S) HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.148 of 2006 ORDER: Heard both sides. Perused the material available on record. The petitioner claiming to be a tenant files this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking to assail the correctness of the order dismissing his appeal by the Tenancy Appellate Tribunal, Eluru, in A.T.A.No.35 of 2002 which arose out of the proceedings initiated by the 1st respondent herein in A.T.C.No.133 of 1991 on the file of the Special Officer (Tenancy)-cum- Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tanuku. In the proceedings which were initiated by the 1st respondent herein eviction was sought against the petitioner and the same was contested. Simultaneously the petitioner and other respondents also seem to have filed applications in A.T.C.Nos.11/1991; 137/1991; 179/1991 and 23/1992. All these applications were inquired into and disposed of by a common order dated 16.04.2002. Aggrieved by such common order, the petitioner chose to file an appeal in A.T.A.No.35 of 2002 only against the order in A.T.C.No.133 of 1991 wherein he was sought to be evicted. There is no explanation forthcoming on the part of the petitioner as to why he could not prefer appeals against the other orders. Since this is a revision against the common order, the findings in other applications which became final and binding on the petitioner would constitute res judicata as far as the petitioner is concerned. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any merit to interfere with the impugned order. During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already availed the remedy available to him under law. It is always open for him to do so. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J 15th July, 2010 CVRK