1. Judgment debtor in E.P.No.10 of 2011 in O.S.No.9 of 2009 on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar is the petitioner in the present revision filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present revision, challenge is to the order dated 9.7.2014 passed by the said Court, directing delivery of the schedule property covered by the suit agreement of sale.

The facts and circumstances, leading to the filing of the present revision are as infra:

2. Respondent herein instituted O.S.No.9 of 2009 against the petitioner on the file of the Court of the I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar for specific performance of Agreement of Sale dated 12.11.2007. The learned Judge decreed the suit on 29.4.2011. Thereafter the decree holder/respondent filed E.P.No.10 of 2011 for execution of sale deed and delivery of possession. The Court below executed registered sale deed on 18.3.2012. In the said execution proceedings, respondent herein filed E.A.No.1 of 2013 for delivery of the subject property. Judgment debtor/petitioner herein filed a counter affidavit, resisting the said application. The learned Judge, by way of an order dated 9.7.2014, allowed the said application and directed the bailiff to deliver the possession of the subject property.

3. Calling in question the validity and the legal sustainability of the said order dated 9.7.2014, the present revision has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Heard Sri D.V.N.Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Nimmagadda Satyanarayana, learned counsel for the respondent apart from perusing the material available on record.

5. Contentions/submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

(1) The order impugned in the present revision is erroneous, contrary to law and opposed to the very spirit and object of the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

(2) In view of the provisions of Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the order passed by the Court below is totally one without jurisdiction.

(3) In the plaint, no relief for delivery of possession was sought nor the Court passed decree for delivery of possession and as per Section 22(1) (a) of the Specific Relief Act, no relief was claimed nor the proviso to Section 22 was invoked and made use of, as such, the Court below erred in ordering delivery of property.

(4) Since there is no decree granted by the original Court, the executing Court grossly erred in ordering delivery of property in execution and it is a settled law that the executing Court cannot travel beyond the decree.

(5) The reasons assigned by the Court below in the order under revision are not in confirmity with the ratio laid down in various authoritative pronouncements.

To bolster his submissions and contentions the learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Adcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd., v. Daulat and another (2001) 7 SCC 698)

(ii) Gloster Limited v. Bowreah Jute Mills Private Limited and other (AIR 2014 Cal 230).

(iii) Durisamyand others v. V.P.Periyasamy Gounder and others (2012 Law Suit (Mad) 2317).

(iv) Anwar Hasan Khan v. Mohammed Shafi and others (AIR 2001 SC 2984)

(v) Dipak Babaria and another v. State of Gujarat and others (2014 Law Suit (SC) 45).

(vi) Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab and others (AIR 2014 SC 1400).

6. Contentions/submissions of the learned counsel for the respondent:

(1) The order under revision is in accordance with law and there is no illegality nor any material infirmity in the impugned order and in the absence of the same present CRP is liable to be dismissed.

(2) In the absence of any specific clause also for recovery of possession in a decree for specific performance of agreement of sale, the executing Court is empowered to order delivery of property covered by suit agreement of sale.

(3) The order under challenge is in accordance with the provisions of Section 55 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 28 of the Spe