Important Point—Date of a decree cannot be equated with date of enforceability of a decree.

1. CRP No.2642 of 2015 is filed, under Section 115 of CPC, challenging the order dated 06.3.2015 in EP No.55 of 2014 in O.S.No.1067 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein and whereby the executing court ordered delivery of E.P. schedule property in favour of decree holders by removing the superstructures in it.

2. CRP No.2396 of 2015 is filed, under Section 115 of CPC, challenging the docket order dated 18.6.2015 in E.A.No.99 of 2015 in EP No.55 of 2014 in O.S.No.1067 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein and whereby the executing court granted police aid for execution of the warrant.

3. CRP No.2397 of 2015 is filed, under Section 115 of CPC, challenging the docket order dated 18.6.2015 in E.A.No.100 of 2015 in EP No.55 of 2014 in O.S.No.1067 of 1999 on the file of the Court of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, wherein and whereby the executing court ordered to break open the E.P. schedule property for execution of the warrant.

4. Since the point involved in all the revision petitions and the parties to the proceedings are one and the same, this court is inclined to dispose of these civil revision petitions by this common order.

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioners-Judgment debtors is three fold: (1) the executing court ought not to have issued delivery warrant in view of pendency of A.S.No.47 of 2003; (2) the executing court failed to consider that EP No.55 of 2014 is not filed within the period of limitation as contemplated under Article 136 of Limitation Act; and (2) if the orders of the court below are allowed to stand, it would amount to miscarriage of justice. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-Decree holders submitted that mere pendency of appeal would not operate automatically as stay of the execution proceedings. He further submitted that in a suit for specific performance, the decree is enforceable from the date of execution of sale deed and not from the date of decree and that aspect was considered by the executing court, in right perspective, and allowed the petition. He would further submit that ex facie there is no illegality, irregularity or impropriety in the impugned orders, which warrant interference of this court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of CPC. 6. The relevant facts, for disposal of these revision petitions, are succinctly as follows: B.Raghunath filed O.S.No.1067 of 1999 on the file of the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Tirupati, against Gutta Subramanyam, for specific performance of contract basing on agreement of sale dated 14.7.1999 executed by Gutta Subramanyam in favour of B.Raghunath. Basing on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial court decreed the suit on 03.7.2000. For one reason or the other, Subramanyam, who is the defendant in the suit, did not execute the sale deed in favour of Raghunath, who is the plaintiff in the suit. Having no other alternative, Raghunath filed E.P. No.489 of 2001 with a prayer to execute the sale deed in his favour by the court. The sale deed was executed in favour of B.Raghunath by the Court on 07.5.2003. B.Raghunath also filed E.A.No.1096 of 2003 for delivery of E.P. schedule property and E.A.No.2362 of 2003 for Police aid and to break open the locks. During the pendency of execution proceedings, Judgment debtor died and E.As were closed. Again, E.A.No.1519 of 2004 was filed for delivery of E.P. schedule property by removing the structures therein. Pending those E.As, Decree holder died; therefore, the legal representatives of the original Judgment debtor and legal representatives of original Decree holder, were brought on record as Judgment debtor Nos.2 to 4 (petitioner Nos.2 to 4 herein) and Decree holder Nos.2 to 4 (respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein) resp