Subhendu Samanta, J.

1. Heard Sri M/s. K.Satyanarayana Murti, learned Counsel for Petitioner and Sri T.V.S.Prabhakar Rao, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1 and Sri Mahadeva Kanthrigala, learned Counsel for Respondent No.3.

2. Instant Civil Revision Petition has been preferred against an order dated 16.12.2025 passed in Execution Application (E.A) No.149 of 2018 in Execution Petition (E.P) No.117 of 1997 in Original Suit (O.S) No.18 of 1989 by the court of learned Principal Senior Civil Judge at Kovvuru.

3. Chronology of litigation between the parties in summarise as follows:-

                  (a) Respondent No.1 being plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of agreement in respect of agreement dated 09.12.1985 executed by deceased 2nd Respondent in favour of 1st Respondent. Learned jurisdictional Civil Judge has decreed the suit on 23.04.1997 in favour of plaintiff against both the Defendants being respondent No.2 and the present Petitioner.

                  (b) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said Decree, Respondents No.1 and 2 have preferred two separate appeals before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court vide a conjoined Judgment dated 11.03.2016 disposed both the Appeals holding that the Appeal filed by the Petitioner/2nd Defendant is allowed, whereas the Appeal filed by 1st Defendant/2nd Respondent is dismissed. In the said Appeal it has been directed that the Plaintiff i.e., Respondent No.1 is at liberty to evict the Petitioner by following due procedure of Law.

                  (c) This Order has been challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court vide SLP(C) No.33550 of 2014 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide its Order dated 05.07.2017 has observed that - "the plaintiff is not entitled to claim recovery of possession in view of Section 22 of the Act of 1963 but the trial court erroneously granted such relief. Hence, the same is hereby set aside holding that the 2nd Defendant is not liable to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property in the suit. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the 2nd Defendant and against the Plaintiff.

                  In view of above, it is made clear that the Plaintiff cannot proceed against the rights of Defendant No.2. The Decree is modified accordingly. The rights of Defendant No.2 can be determined by the executing court".

                  (d) By the strength of said observation of the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding modification of the Decree, the Petitioner herein being Defendant No.2 has filed an application under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code before the learned Executing Court in E.P.No.117 of 1997. The said application under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code (for short C.P.C) in E.A.No.149 of 2018.

                  Said Execution Application was heard by the learned Executing Court and disposed of by impugned Order. Hence, this instant Civil Revision Petition.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has raised some points regarding challenging the impugned Order. Firstly, he argued that at the time of disposing of the same application under Section 47 of C.P.C., the learned Executing Court has fixed four (4) points. The 1st point was in respect of, whether the Petitioner was a statutory cultivating tenant of Execution Petition (for short E.P) schedule property? 2nd point was, whether the right of preemption of the Petitioner is within limitation period?

5. On merit, learned counsel for the Petitioner argued that the learned Court below while disposing of the point No.1 has observed that the Petitioner has miserably failed to establish that he was cultivating tenant over the E.P., schedule property on the date of agreement of sale dated 09.12.1985. On the other hand, while disposing of points No.2 and 3 the learned Executing Court has observed that the claim of right of preemption of Petitioner is barred by limitation. The simple argument of the Petitioner is that when the learned Executing Court has held that the Petitioner has failed to establish his right of preemption over the E.P., schedule property, how the prayer of the Petitioner can be barred by limitation. He submits that both the observations of the learned Executing Court are contradictory; either the prayer of the Petitioner be barred by limitation or not established.

6. Secondly, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued that there is no valid Decree against the present Petitioner either by the Trial Court or by any Court of Law up-to the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Decree in favour of Respondent No.1 is not executable against the present Petitioner. Thus, the Order passed by learned Executing Court under Section 47 of C.P.C., is not at all maintainable.

7. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 submits that the Petitioner mainly adopted a procedure to frustrate the fruits of the Decree ordered by the learned Trial Court in the year 1997. Since then, the Petitioner is roaming before the Court to get the fruits of the Decree. He further submits that the peculiar fact would suggest that Defendant No.2/ Petitioner is one of the sons of Defendant No.1. The claim of tenancy right of the Petitioner is not at all maintainable as he claimed tenancy right against his mother. He further argued that the matter was properly settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court regarding the right of the Petitioner to raise any objection determining his right before the Executing Court. Thus, the application under Section 47 of C.P.C., has been properly determined by the learned Executing Court. He further submits that the Executing Court has also determined regarding the Settlement Deed executed by deceased Defendant No.1 in favour of her grand-daughter during the pendency of the Appeal. That suggests that the present Petitioner and their family members are not in hand-glove to deny the right of the Plaintiff/ Respondent No.1 to get the Decree executed. He further submits that the present Petitioner has already filed a tenancy application before the Tenancy Tribunal being numbered as 86/2008 which was dismissed by the said Tenancy Tribunal. Thus, the Petitioner has no right to claim tenancy over the E.P schedule property.

8. In a reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that an Appeal has been preferred against the Order of the learned Tenancy Tribunal in ATC No.1 of 2018 which is pending.

9. In considering the entire facts and circumstances, after following the detailed arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties, it appears that the petitioner has filed an application under Section 47 of C.P.C., before the learned Executing Court in E.P.No.117/1997.

10. Before entering into the merit of this matter, we have to fix understand in this matter that the Hon'ble Apex Court has guided how the rights of Petitioner and Decree of the plaintiff/Respondent No.1 has to be determined. In operative portion of the Order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was clarified that the plaintiff cannot proceed against the right of Defendant No.2 i.e., present Petitioner. On that point, the Decree was modified. However, a liberty was given by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the Defendant No.2/Petitioner, who can approach executing Court to determine his right. On plain perusal of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it was not mandatory upon the Defendant No.2 to approach the Executing Court to declare his right. It was option upon the Defendant No.2 to approach the Executing Court rather, it is the directory upon the plaintiff that he cannot proceed against the right of the Defendant No.2.

11. Whatever may be the direction upon the parties thereto, the fact suggests that Defendant No.2/Petitioner has approached the Executing Court by making an objection in execution are under Section 47 of C.P.C., in terms of the approach by Petitioner/ Defendant No.2, Executing Court had acquired its source of power to determine the right of Defendant No.2/Petitioner.

12. Let me consider, whether by passing the impugned Order, learned Executing Court has rightfully decides the objection raised by the Defendant No.2/Petitioner against the Plaintiff's prayer for execution of the Decree. In deciding the said matter, the learned Trial Court has framed 4 (four) points. In point No.1 the learned Trial Court has categorically observed the factual aspects of the matter and is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to place any document or any evidence either oral or documentary, to establish his statutory tenancy rights over the E.P., schedule property. In point No.1 the learned Executing Court has specifically observed that the Defendant No.2/Petitioner has miserably failed to establish that he was a cultivating tenant over the E.P., schedule property as on the date of agreement of sale dated 09.12.1985. Admittedly, the learned counsel for the Petitioner has placed nothing on record to discredit the finding of the learned Trial Court over point No.1.

13. Points 2 and 3 were decided conjointly by the learned Trial Court as to whether the claim of preemption right of the Petitioner is barred by limitation. In deciding said points, the learned Trial Court has again observed the failure of the Petitioner to place any documentary or oral evidence and also observed that the Petitioner has not placed any record to show that he has paid "Maktha" (rent) to his mother or his daughter during entire period. He has also observed that the cultivating tenancy right ends with the agricultural year and Petitioner could not place any record of earlier suit regarding their compromise where from it can be ascertained Petitioner was cultivating. On the basis of said observation, the learned Trial Court has denied the right of the Petitioner on the ground that his preemption right is barred by limitation. In deciding that the right of the Petitioner, the learned Trial Court has not observed anything that the Petitioner was in possession as a tenant over the property in a particular day or in particular period of year.

14. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has pointed out that the two observations of the learned Trial Court regarding points No.1 and 2 & 3 are contradictory. I have perused both the points categorically and it appears that the points are not at all contradictory. The learned Trial Court has never held that the Petitioner was at any point of time in cultivation over the E.P., Schedule property as a tenant. Thus, the observation of the learned Trial Court appears to me not contradictory. Accordingly, 1st point raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner appears to be not meritorious one.

15. In considering the 2nd limb argument by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, it is true that the learned Apex Court has categorically observed that plaintiff cannot proceed against the right of Defendant No.2/Petitioner, on the basis of which, the Decree was modified and it was option of the Defendant No.2 to approach Executing Court. The Defendant No.2/Petitioner has approached the Executing Court in the instant E.A.,. The nature of objection application under Section 47 of C.P.C., is an objection against the Decree. The point of objection raised by the present Petitioner before the Executing Court has been properly determined. The objection appears before the Executing Court not tenable, thus, the objections were turn down. The E.P., is pending before the learned Executing Court. The learned Executing Court shall proceed in E.P.,. In proceeding the said E.P., whether the learned Executing Court shall proceed according to Law and in terms of the directions of the learned Apex Court, cannot be determined at this stage. Now, in deciding the right of Defendant No.2 in objection under section 47 of C.P.C., the entire merit of the Execution Petition being E.P.No.117 of 1997 cannot be determined by this Revisional Court. This Revisional Court is only looking after the illegality and propriety of the Order passed by the learned Executing Court in E.A.No.149 of 2018. On such basis, I find that the Order passed by the learned Executing Court in E.A.No.149 of 2018 appears to be justified and correct one.

16. With the above observation, the instant Civil Revision Petition appears to be not so meritorious to be entertained. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.

                  I make it clear that this Court in deciding the Civil Revision Petition, has not entered into the merits of the Execution Petition being E.P.No.117/1997. The executing Court has to proceed with the E.P., according to Law and according to the observation of the Hon'ble Apex court made therein. The Executing Court further directed to conclude the Execution Proceedings as early as possible, most preferably within six (6) months, from the date of receiving this order.

                  Consequently, pending Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, shall stand closed.