( 1 ) THE revision petitioner who is the judgment-Debtor in E. P. No. 12 of 1997 in o. S. No. 431 of 1993 on the file of the principal District Munsiff at Karimnagar, filed the present revision, aggrieved by the order of issuing warrant of delivery of possession against him on 22-10-98. For the purpose of deciding the present, revision, the other factual details may not be necessary.

( 2 ) SRI Ramesh Sagar, learned Counsel for revision petitioner/ judgment-debtor had raised the following contentions. Learned counsel submitted that in E. P. No. 12 of 1997, two reliefs have been prayed for, one is for recovery of rents and another is for delivery of property. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Rule 55 and rule 218 of A. P. Civil Rules of Practice, and also had drawn my attention to Order 21 rule 11 of the C. P. C. and contended that the relief of recovery of money cannot be prayed for and in this view of the matter, the very e. P. containing two prayers is not maintainable and hence the order of delivery made in pursuance of such Execution petition is unsustainable in law.

( 3 ) SRI P. V. Narayana Rao, learned counsel representing respondent/ decreeholder had submitted that Rule 55 and rule 218 of the A. P. Civil Rules of Practice, 1990, are applicable only to interlocutory proceedings and also execution applications which would be filed in the main E. P. proceedings. Learned Counsel had also drawn my attention to Rule 209 of the A. P. Civil Rules of Practice, 1990 (in short hereinafter called as the Rules for the sake of convenience) and contended that in view of the specific provisions, it cannot be said that rule 55 and Rule 218 of the Rules are applicable. The learned Counsel had drawn my attention to Order 21 Rule 11 (2) (J) of c. P. C. and contended that the reliefs prayed for in the E. P. are in accordance with law and that there is no illegality and placed reliance on Viryala Perraju v. Pilli Achanna and judgment of Division Bench in d. Narayanaswamy Naidu v. T. T. Devasthanams, Tirupati and contended that in the light of the ratio in the above decisions, it cannot be said that two prayers cannot be prayed in Execution Petition as such.

( 4 ) AFTER hearing both the parties at length, it may be appropriate to deal with the relevant provisions on this aspect before proceeding further.

( 5 ) RULE 55 of the Rules, falls under the interlocutory proceedings, which reads as follows:"separate Application for each distinct prayer:- There shall be separate application in respect of each distinct relief prayed for. When several reliefs are combined in one application, the court may direct the applicant to confine the application only to one of such reliefs unless the reliefs are consequential and to file a separate application in respect of each of the others. "

( 6 ) IT is relevant to look into Rule 53 of the rules here itself, which deals with the form of interlocutory applications:"form of Interlocutory Application:- interlocutory applications shall be headed with the cause title of the plaint, original petition, or appeal, as in Form no. 13. "

( 7 ) IT is no doubt true that Rule 218 of the rules dealing with application of rules specifies that Rules 53 to 59 and 213 supra shall apply to all applications by a party to the suit or matter made in or with respect to pending execution petition".

( 8 ) RULE 213 of the Rules reads as follows:- determination of question arising in execution of Decree:- If any question arises for the determination of the court executing a decree the same shall be heard and determined upon the hearing of the petition or an application made therein, and, if evidence is taken orally, the Court shall record the evidence of the witness, and mark all exhibits admitted in evidence, in accordance with Order XVIII Rules 4 and 9 to the Code. The Court shall, in any case records its judgment and draw up its order in the same manner as upon the hearing of a suit.

( 9 ) RULE 209 of the Rul