ORDER:

I have heard both sides. The learned counsel for first respondent/claimant would submit that revision petition is not maintainable against the orders passed by executing Court under Order XXI Rules 58 and 97 of Civil Procedure Code. He placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Gunti Yashoda and Another1. For which, learned counsel for revision petitioner fairly contended that as per ratio laid down in Full Bench judgment, he prays to pass necessary orders giving liberty to the revision petitioner to work out appropriate remedies by filing regular appeal.

2. This Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Gunti Yashoda and Another case (referred supra) after elaborately discussing precedent law and provisions of Civil Procedure Code held at paras 42 and 43, which reads as under:

<42. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that;

a) Against the orders passed under Rule 58(3) and Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 C.P.C. regular appeals under Section 96 and not miscellaneous appeals under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. are maintainable and that the judgment of this Court in

1 AIR 2005 AP 95(FB)

Nookaraju’s case (1 supra) does not represent the correct position of law.

b) The Court fee payable on such appeals shall be the one calculated in accordance with Articles 11(i) or 3(i) of Schedule II of Court Fees Act, as the case may be read with Section 49 of the A.P.

Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act.

c) A second appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. is maintainable against an order passed in an appeal, arising out of order passed under Rule

58(3) or Rules 98 and 100 of Order 21 C.P.C.

43. Consequently, the order under revision is upheld and the C.R.P. is dismissed. The petitioner shall be entitled to avail the remedy of appeal under Section 96 C.P.C., against the order of the Executing Court, duly availing the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.=

3. On perusal of ratio laid down by Full Bench of this Court, which shows that the orders passed under Order XXI Rule 58 are appealable orders and appeal shall lie only under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code. It is not in dispute that orders passed in claim petition under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC is a decree wherein executing Court declared R1/claimant?s right and possession over >ABCDGHI? portion of petition plan property. In view of ratio laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Gurram Seetharam Reddy Vs. Gunti Yashoda and Another case (referred supra), this Court is of an opinion that revision filed by the petitioners/decree-holders/R13 and R14 is not maintainable though filed under Section 22 of A.P.Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960. The remedy available for the revision petitioners is to file regular appeal before competent Court by filing necessary petition under Section 14 of Limitation Act, if they are so advised.

4. Hence, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with an observation that revision petition filed under Section 22 of A.P.Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1960, is not maintainable against the orders passed by the executing Court in a petition filed under Order XXI Rule 58 and 97 of Civil Procedure Code and regular appeal shall only lie. No order as to costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending if any, shall stand closed. The interim orders if any granted earlier, shall stand vacated.

______________________

BANDARU SYAMSUNDER, J Dt:24.11.2022.

Rns HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE BANDARU SYAMSUNDER Date: 24.11.2022 Rns