( 1 ) THESE two Civil Revision Petitions are filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil procedure, aggrieved by the interlocutory orders passed in execution proceedings in e. A. No. 546 of 1997 and E. A. No. 544 of 1997 respectively in OEP. No. 66 of 1997 in o. S. No. 46 of 1977 on the file of the additional Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi.

( 2 ) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 1526 of 2005 filed against the orders passed by the court below in E. A. No. 546 of 1997, dismissing the application filed under section 47 read with Section 151 CPC; whereas, Civil Revision Petition No. 1529 of 2005 is filed against the order in E. A. No. 544 of 1997, allowing the application filed by the respondents-decree holders for police aid, to execute the decree in O. S. No. 46 of 1977.

( 3 ) ORIGINALLY one Guduru Chenga Reddy has filed suit in O. S. No. 46 of 1977 against the petitioners herein for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, i. e. Ac. 0. 94 cents of land, situated on Tiruchunur road, in Chittoor District. During the pendency of the said suit, the said Gudur chenga Reddy died and, respondents 1 to 3 came on record as legatees and successors in interest of the said Gudur Chenga Reddy. As stated in the plaint filed in support of the said suit, it was the case of the plaintiffs that one Late Atchamma was the original owner of the suit schedule property, as it fell to her share in the registered partition deed dated 14-7-1956. It was their case that the petitioners herein, who are the defendants in the suit, had taken the said land on lease to run business in petrol and diesel, in the name and style of sri Venkateswara Oil company, Tirupathi . The said Atchamma died on 24-5-1971 leaving the original plaintiff-Gudur Chengareddy, who was her son. On the ground that the rents were not properly paid, after terminating the lease, the said suit was filed for delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule property, for payment of arrears of rent and damages. The said suit was decreed on 17-7-1987, which was confirmed by the learned Single judge of this Court by judgment dated 18-10-1996 in A. S. No. 2144 of 1984, further, by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 29-11-2001 in L. P. A. No. 95 of 1997. Ultimately, the matter was carried to supreme Court in Special Leave Petition no. 8718 of 2002, which was dismissed by order dated 9-5-2002. In view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition, on a representation made by the learned Counsel for the petitioners therein, the Apex Court granted time till 31-12-2002 to vacate the premises, subject to filing the undertaking within four weeks. But, however, such undertaking was not filed. When the respondents- decree holders have taken steps to execute the decree, the petitioners- judgment debtors have filed E. A. No. 546 of 1997 under Section 47, read with Sec. 151 cpc to declare that the judgment and decree in O. S. No. 46 of 1977 is un- enforceable against them. At the same time, on the ground that some structures were made during the pendency of the suit, the respondents-decree holders have filed e. A. No. 543 of 1997 for removal of the structures and E. A. No. 544 of 1997 seeking police aid, pleading, that the judgment debtors are resisting, to execute the decree. By impugned orders, the Court below has dismissed the application filed by the petitioners-judgment debtors under Sec. 47, read with Section 151 CPC and allowed the application filed by the respondents-decree holders for grant of police aid.

( 4 ) IN these revision petitions, it is submitted by Sri Koka Raghava Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that the respondents-decree holders have obtained decree by, showing the suit schedule property only, i. e. Ac. 0. 94 cents of land, and though structures were in existence, by that time, the same were not shown; as such, as the decree was not obtained by the respondents- decree holders for removal of the structures, the s