THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.4115 of 2011 ORDER The petitioner herein filed O.S.No.4387 of 2004 in the Court of IV Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against the respondent for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 20.07.1992. The suit was decreed on 02.08.2006 and after the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P.No.87 of 2008 for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and the same was dismissed by the executing Court on 14.02.2011. Subsequently, he filed E.P.(Sr)No.1197 of 2011 under Order XXI Rule 35 read with Section 151 CPC for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property as per the aforesaid judgment and decree. Through its order, dated 02.07.2011, the executing Court rejected the said E.P. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed the present civil revision petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though the respondent-caveator was served with notice, none appeared nor any representation is made on his behalf. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that E.P.No.87 of 2008 filed earlier by the petitioner was dismissed without adjudicating on merits. 4. The trial Court while decreeing O.S.No.4387 of 2004 directed the respondent to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plaint schedule property, within two months from the date of the judgment. That judgment and decree had attained finality, since no appeal has been preferred by the respondent. In fact, in the decree, there is no specific order with regard to delivery of possession of the property. 5. Order XXI Rule 32(5) CPC clearly provides that in case a decree for the specific performance of a contract of sale is not obeyed, the Court may direct that the act required to be done under the decree may be done so far as practicable by the decree- holder or some other person appointed by the Court, at the cost of the judgment-debtor, and upon the act being done the expenses incurred may be ascertained in such manner as the Court may direct and may be recovered as if they were included in the decree. 6. In view of the above said provision, the delivery of possession is an incidental relief to the petitioner/decree holder as the trial Court directed the respondent/judgment-debtor to execute the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the plaint schedule property. 7. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to direct the executing Court to number the E.P(SR). and proceed in accordance with law. Subject to the above, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. ____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED Date: 14.10.2011 Note: Issue CC within three days (Bo) sj