THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 624 of 2010 Dated: 08.04.2010 Between: Obulareddigari Ramanjula Reddy … Petitioner And Yangalannagari Lakshmi Devi and 3 others. … Respondents THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No. 624 of 2010 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 19.01.2010 in E.P.No.1 of 2010 in O.S.No.51 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Gooti The suit was filed by the first respondent herein for declaration of title and delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and also for damages. Written statement was filed by the defendants contesting the suit claim. However, they failed to cross-examine P.W.1 in spite of several opportunities granted and no evidence was adduced on their behalf. In the circumstances, the Court below pronounced the judgment on 14.09.2009 decreeing the suit. The Court below had also awarded damages of Rs.50,000/- per annum. The revision petitioner, who is the defendant No.2 states that he filed an application on 09.11.2009 under Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. with a prayer to set aside the decree dated 14.09.2009 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. It is further stated that even before the said applications could be heard, the plaintiff filed E.P.No.1 of 2010 seeking delivery of the plaint schedule property and without notice to the defendants/judgment debtors, the Court below had issued delivery warrant dated 19.01.2010 directing the bailiff to put the plaintiff in possession of the plaint schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contended that since the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex parte decree is pending, the Court below ought not to have issued the warrant for delivery of the property to the 1st respondent. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent/decree holder contended that pursuant to the delivery warrant dated 19.01.2010, the suit schedule property was delivered to the 1st respondent on 02.02.2010 itself and as on today, the 1st respondent/decree holder has been continuing in possession of the same. It is also contended that the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. said to have been filed by the defendants was not maintainable since the decree dated 14.09.2009 was not an ex parte decree. A counter affidavit has been filed before this Court by the 1st respondent/decree holder stating that the possession of the suit schedule property was delivered to her on 02.02.2010 by the Field Assistant of the Court and a report to that effect was submitted to the Court on 06.02.2010. As noticed above, it is the specific case of the revision petitioner that the application filed by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, have been numbered as I.A.Nos.35 of 2010 and 36 of 2010 respectively and the same stand posted to 23.04.2010 for the counters of the 1st respondent. It is also contended by the revision petitioner that the said applications were filed on 09.11.2009 itself after notice to the 1st respondent herein. So far as E.P.No.1 of 2010 is concerned, though it is contended by the 1st respondent that she was already put in possession pursuant to the impugned delivery warrant dated 19.01.2010, the revision petitioner disputed the same and contended that the defendants are still continuing in possession and that the delivery warrant report submitted by the Field Assistant of the Court was a forged document. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be gone into by this Court and no finding as such can be recorded. At any rate, since E.P.No.1 of 2010 is still pending before the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooti, both the parties are granted liberty to submit their objections before the Court below on or before 19.04.2010. Thereafter, the Court below shall pass appropriate orders in E.P.No.1 of 2010 after making the necessary enquiry into the rival claims. Till such order is passed, status quo as ordered by this court on 19.03.2010 shall continue. Keeping in view the specific plea of the revision petitioner that I.A.Nos.35 of 2010 and 36 of 2010 are posted to 23.04.2010, there shall also be a direction to the Court below to dispose of the same following due process of law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order without fail. Civil Revision Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 08.04.2010 Note : Issue C.C. by Monday. B/o KLP