( 1 ) THE petitioners -judgment- debtors filed this revision questioning the correctness of the Order dated 29-3-2005 passed by the learned Principal Junior Civil judge, Kurnool in E P. No 508 of 2004 in o. S. No. 19 of 1993.

( 2 ) IN spite of service of notice on the respondents, none appears. Hence they are set ex parte. Initially, the respondents - decree holders filed the suit O. S. No. 19 of 1993 on the file of the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Kurnool for declaration of title and for possession which was dismissed by the trial Court Aggrieved by the same, A. S. No. 90 of 1998 was filed by them before the learned III Additional district Judge, Kurnool and the same was allowed in part decreeing the suit for possession on the decree holders depositing rs. 15,000/- within one month from the date of the decree I e. , 28-2-2000. On such deposit, the petitioners - judgment-debtors were directed to handover the possession to the respondents - decree holders within three months from the date of deposit s A. No. 441 of 2000 preferred by the petitioners - judgment-debtors before this court against the judgment in A S. No. 90 of 1998 was dismissed for default on 2-8-2002 the respondents - decree holders filed ep. No. 508 of 2004 after two years and four days from the date of dismissal of the second appeal in which the Executing Court passed the impugned order as under :"for steps against R2-R3 unserved non- residents Delivery Batta not paid Batta paid with petition Allowed Issue delivery warrant Call on 5/5/05"

( 3 ) QUESTIONING the legality and validity of the said order, the present revision is filed.

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioners would contend that the order passed by the trial Court is contrary to Order XXI Rule 22 cpc as no notice was ordered before issuing the delivery warrant. He would further contend that when once the Court ordered to take steps for service of notices upon the judgment-debtors, delivery warrant cannot be issued until such service is effected.

( 5 ) WHEN the revision petition has come up for admission on 20-12-2005, this court called for a report from the trial Court as to whether the E. P. was filed within two years from the date of the dismissal of the second appeal or not, and whether delivery warrant was issued without service of notice on the judgment-debtors and if so, the warrant has been executed or not. In response to the same, the learned Principal junior Civil Judge, Kurnool submitted his report on 29-12-2005 stating that the E. P. itself was filed after two years and four days from the date of disposal of the second appeal and his predecessor ordered notice under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC to judgment- debtors 2 and 3. That no notice under Order XXI Rule 22 was ordered. Again on 15-9-2004 when the matter has come up for hearing, notice under order XXI Rule 35 was issued as decree holders failed to pay batta on the previous adjournment and the matter was posted to 2-12-2004. On the said date, office had put up a note that notice on judgment-debtors 2 and 3 was not served as they are non-residents in the E. P. address. Then, his predecessor ordered for steps and delivery of property posting the matter to 27-1-2005. On the said date, the Counsel for the decree holders filed a petition to condone the delay in payment of batta for delivery of property which was allowed posting the matter to 29-3-2005. On 29-3-2005, the decree holders represented batta for delivery warrant with a petition and the same is allowed which is impugned in the revision. On 5-5-2005, office had prepared a note that delivery warrant was returned as not effected due to lock of door as per Amin s report dated 4-5-2005 and accordingly, the matter is posted for steps and adjourned to 27-6-2005 and on the said date, delivery warrant was issued posting the E. P to 24-8-2005 and so far the delivery warrants are not executed on the judgment-debtors and that the same are pending execution.

( 6 ) ORDER XXI Rule 22 CPC manda

Click Here to Read the rest of this document