The court emphasized the finality of decrees and the importance of timely enforcement, stating that delays do not merit reconsideration of established judgments.

ORDER :

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner (Judgment-Debtor) under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 assailing the order dated 31.12.2024 passed in E.P.No.685 of 2023 in O.S.No.96 of 1999 by the V Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.

Nagar (for short, ‘the impugned order’)

2. Heard Mr. A. Venkateswarlu, learned counsel for the petitioner (Judgment-Debtor).

3. A perusal of the pleadings would go to show that the respondents (plaintiffs) have filed the above suit, viz., O.S.No.96 of 1999, seeking for recovery of possession of an extent of 761 Sq.Yds. in Sy.No.102/3/11 consisting of plots bearing Nos.4, 9, 10, 11 and 12 situated at Nagole Village, Uppal Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. Vide Judgment dated 21.11.2002 the Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of respondents with costs and directed the petitioner herein to deliver vacant possession of the subject land to the respondents within three months from the date of order and also directed the petitioner not to alienate the suit schedule land.

4. Aggrieved, the petitioner herein preferred appeal before this High Court by filing Appeal Suit Nos.172 and 403 of 2003. However, vide order dated 16.10.2024, a learned Judge of this Court dismissed the appeals and confirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.11.2002 in O.S.No.96 of 1999 on the file of the V Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Ranga Reddy District, L.B. Nagar. 5. By efflux of time, the said judgment and decree dated

21.11.2002 has attained finality.

6. In between, the respondents herein (plaintiffs) initiated E.P. proceedings before the Trial Court by filing E.P.No.685 of 2023 in O.S.No.96 of 1999 under Order XXI Rule 35(1) to (3) r/w Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 praying the Court to direct the petitioner (Judgment- Debtor) to deliver vacant and peaceful possession of E.P. Schedule property to the respondents herein (Decree-

Holders).

7. Vide order dated 31.12.2024, the Trial Court allowed E.P.No.685 of 2023 in O.S.No.96 of 1999 and issued “Delivery Warrant” under Rule 35 of Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 through process of Court.

8. Assailing the same, the instant Revision has been filed by the petitioner (Judgment-Debtor).

9. Considering the fact that the proceedings in the appeal have all been concluded and the appeal filed by the petitioner herein has also been dismissed, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner herein has not been able to show any strong case made out to stall the operation of the impugned order. Another reason why this Court is reluctant to entertain the Revision is the fact that the judgment and decree was passed by the Trial Court in way back in November, 2002, and it is more than two decades now that the respondents (Decree-Holders) have still not been able to reap the fruits of the judgment and decree in their favour.

10. Therefore, for all the aforesaid reasons this Court is not inclined to entertain the Civil Revision Petition as the same is being devoid of any merit. Therefore, the Revision fails and the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

11. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall stand closed.

___________________

P. SAM KOSHY, J Date : 24.01.2025 Ndr