THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2892 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 C.P.C to revive the order dated 08.07.2011 passed by II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada in E.A(GL) No.10157 of 2011 in E.P.No.80 of 2011 in O.S.No.528 of 1992. The petitioner, who is a third party to the proceedings, filed E.A.No.647 of 2007 in E.P.No.54 of 2003 under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C against the decree holder and the legal heirs of the judgment debtor to dismiss the said E.P. The said petition was dismissed as not pressed on 01.08.2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed E.A.No.518 of 2008 in E.P.No.54 of 2003 under Sections XLVII & 151 C.P.C to direct respondents 3 to 5, the legal heirs of the judgment debtor not to execute the sale deed in favour of the decree holder and also to dismiss E.P.No.54 of 2003. On dismissal of the said E.A.No.518 of 2008, the petitioner approached this Court and filed C.R.P.No.5720 of 2008, which was also dismissed on 20.02.2011 leaving open the remedies available to the petitioner under law. Subsequently, E.P.No.54 of 2003 was terminated on 01.06.2011 after execution of the sale deed in favour of the decree holder by the court. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.80 of 2011 for delivery of the property based on the sale deed executed in his favour by the Court. The decree holder also filed E.A.No.301 of 2011 in E.P.No.80 of 2011 for appointment of Mandal Surveyor, Kankipadu for measuring the land and to fix the boundaries at the time of delivery of the property to the decree holder. E.A.No.301 of 2011 was allowed appointing the Mandal Surveyor to measure the land at the time of delivery to the decree holder. By order dated 12.07.2011 the Executing Court recorded the delivery and terminated the E.P. While E.P.No.80 of 2011 was pending, the petitioner again filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 58 C.P.C praying the Court to declare that respondents 3 to 5 cannot sell the decree schedule property and to declare that the decree schedule property cannot be sold in execution of the decree. The Executing Court rejected the said petition by order dated 30.05.2011 observing that earlier the petitioner filed a similar petition in E.A.No.518 of 2008 and the same was dismissed and therefore again filing the petition with the same relief cannot be entertained. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present application under Order XXI Rule 97 and Section 151 C.P.C for declaration that she is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property and to dismiss the E.P as not maintainable. The Executing Court, on hearing the learned counsel with regard to the maintainability of the said petition, rejected the application by the impugned order dated 08.07.2011. Alleging that no detailed order is passed except the impugned docket order, the petitioner filed this revision. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 29.07.2011, the Executing Court submitted a report along with the detailed order, which is running into five pages narrating the events, which took place on decreeing the suit. The said detailed order also discloses that the Executing Court has considered the contention of the petitioner that she purchased the said property in a open Court auction conducted by the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court in E.P.No.16 of 2003 in O.S.No.2685 of 2002 and became successful bidder; that the said sale was confirmed on 25.10.2004 and sale certificate was issued in her favour and possession was also delivered and since then she is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the decree schedule property; that her name was also mutated in the revenue records, and therefore, she is a bona fide purchaser; that respondents 3 to 5 have no right to execute a sale deed from 25.10.2004, the day on which the sale was confirmed in her favour and thus the decree has become unexecutable and that the sale deed executed by the Court will not bind her as she is having an independent title and absolute possession of the suit schedule land. The lower Court rightly held that when I.A.No.518 of 2008 filed by the petitioner was dismissed rejecting her plea, again filing petition after petition with the same pleas and obstructing the decree holder not to enjoy the fruits of the decree is nothing but abuse of process and the same cannot be entertained. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable in the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date: 12.08.2011 va