This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India assailing the decretal order, dated 16-12-2005, passed by the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore in E.A.No.363 of 2002 in E.P.No.69 of 1993 arising out of an ex parte decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession passed by the said Court in O.S.No.676 of 1990. The petitioner herein is the decree holder and the first respondent in E.A.No.363 of 2002 whereas one Jaladanki Saroja is a third party to the said suit, who filed EANo.363 of 2002. After her death, her legal representatives, namely, the husband and two daughters were brought on record before the lower Court, who are respondents 2 to 4 herein.

2. The brief fact of the matter is as follows. The petitioner was assigned/allotted land admeasuring Acs. 331/2 ankanams bearing plot No.13 in Block B in survey No. 78/2 situated at Vedayapalem, Nellore, on payment of market value under proceedings, dated 22-6-1978, which was marked as EX.X-1. He was allegedly put in possession of vacant land. When there was dispute about his title, he filed the suit being O.S.No.676 of 1990 for declaration of title and recovery of possession based on the assignment made in his favour. The suit was decreed on 26-7-1991 by the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, against respondents 5 and 6 herein, who were defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. The petitioner, therefore, filed E.P.No.69 of 1993 for execution of the decree. At that stage, Jaladanki Saroja, filed E.A.No.96 of 1993 under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPG). She alleged that she was assigned plot No.3 in survey No.78/4, that she was in possession of the property and that she obtained ex parte decree in O.S.No.538 of 1989, dated 20-9-1992 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, against the petitioner herein. The said execution application was dismissed on 30-6-1995 on the ground that the property claimed by Saroja is different from the suit schedule property in O.S.No.676 of 1990.

3. Saroja filed C.R.P.No.2452 of 1995 against EANo.96 of 1993, dated 30-6-1995. This Court dismissed the same on 19-2-2002. The petitioner herein then executed decree in O.S.No.676 of 1990 and took possession of the site as well as an3sidential house, which was allegedly the same as suit schedule in O.S.No.676 of 1990. Saroja, however, disputed this. Throughout her contention was that the land, which was assigned to her and the house, which was constructed, are in survey No.78/4 bearing plot No.3, which is different from the suit schedule property in the suit filed by the petitioner. Taking such a plea, she filed EANo.363 of~002 under Section 144 of CPC on the file of the Court of III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore. She prayed for restoration of the property from which she was dispossessed by the Court bailiff in purported execution of the decree in O.S.No.676 of 1990. EANo.363 of 2002 was allowed on 21-10-2002. The petitioner then filed C.MA No.69 of 2002 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Nellore. By order, dated 24-4-2002, the appellate Judge allowed the matter and remanded to the lower Court. After remand, the lower Court by order, dated 16-12-2005 allowed EANo.363 of 2002. Feeling aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed C.M.A., on the file of the District Court, which was returned as not maintainable. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 16-12-2005. Be it also noted, before the lower Court, the contesting respondents examined P. W.1 to P.WA and marked Exs.A-1 to A-27. The petitioner examined himself as R.W.1, besides examining R.W.2 and R.W.3 and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. C.W.1 to C.WA were also examined and Exs.X-1 to X-25 were also marked. X-18 is the delivery warrant and EX.X-19 is the report of the Court Amin of delivery receipt handing over possession of property in possession of Saroja to the petitioner herein.

4.