THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.3260 and 3261 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: These two Civil Revision Petitions shall stand disposed of by this common order, as they are connected with each other. Sri Vedala Prakasam is tenant of agricultural land admeasuring Acs.2.34 cents in Survey No.317 of Mallavaram Village, Narsapur Mandal, West Godavari District. The owner is Dr.C.R.Prabhakar. Latter filed eviction petition being ATC No.7/1998 under Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 ('the Act', for brevity). Same was being allowed by Special Officer under A.P.Tenancy Act – cum – Principal Senior Civil Judge, Narsapur, West Godavari District ('Special Officer', for brevity) on 25.07.2003 ordering eviction of tenant. Aggrieved by same, tenant preferred appeal being ATA No.33 of 2003. It was dismissed on 05.09.2005. Be it noted that by the stage of appeal, original landlord and original tenant died and their Legal Representatives are brought on record. Landlords filed Execution Petition No.52 of 2007 for delivery and possession. Special Officer ordered the same and it appears on 01.03.2008, Court Amin filed delivery report. Thereafter, petitioner (tenant) filed Execution Application No.34 of 2008 praying Special Officer, not to record delivery of property. His allegation is that Court Amin delivered posession of property of standing crop, contrary to warrant issued by Court. This was opposed by landlords. During enquiry, petitioner examined himself as P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 and P.W.3. It appears that P.W.2 and P.W.3 did not turn up for cross- examintion. Presumably, for this reason, petitioner filed three third party affidavits to prove his case that there was standing crop on land. He thus filed Execution Application No.159 of 2009 to re-open E.A.No.34 of 2008 and E.A.No.160 of 2009 to summon witnesses (those persons who filed affidavits). These applications were opposed. Considering merits of case, learned Senior Civil Judge disposed of E.A.No.159 of 2009 on 25.06.2009. Consequently, E.A.No.160 was also dismissed. Aggrieved by same, petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3260 of 2009 against E.A.No.159 of 2009 and C.R.P.No.3261 of 2009 is filed against E.A.No.160 of 2009. Learned counsel for petitioner vehemently contends that lower Court issued warrant of possession, specifically directing Court Amin to deliver vacant land of Mallavaram Village and have delivery of land with crops, which is contrary to decree. He also contends that delivery of property was not actually made and it was only paper delivery. These contentions are refuted by learned consel for respondents. There is no dispute that defendant suffered eviction order. There is also no dispute that Court passed orders directing Court Amin to deliver land to landlords. There is also no dispute that after delivery of property, Court Amin filed delivery report. To prove his case that there was no proper delivery, petitioner gave evidence as P.W.1. Though he examined P.W.2 and P.W.3, inspite of number of opportunites, P.W.2 and P.W.3 were not produced for cross-examintion. Having failed to summon of these witnesses, petitioner cannot again seek to re-open matter to bring other witnesses who gave third party affidavits. In view of the above, this Court does not find any infirmity in impugned orders. These Civil Revision Petitions fail and are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO,J) August 07, 2009 Bvv