1. This civil revision petition is filed under section 115 C.P.C. against the delivery warrant dated 08.01.2026 issued in E.A.No.31 of 2025 in E.P.No.16 of 2023 in O.S.No.63 of 2007 by the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Hindupur.

2. The revision petitioners are the third parties to the execution proceedings in E.P.No.16 of 2023 which was filed by the respondent No.1 / D.Hr. / plaintiff against the respondent No.2 / J.Dr. / defendant.

3. The facts leading to filing of this petition are stated briefly as follows:-

                  a) The respondent No.1 filed a suit in O.S.No.63 of 2007 against the respondent No.2 seeking relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 01.06.2007. The suit was filed on 09.07.2007. The defendant remained ex parte. The suit was decreed on 06.09.2007.

                  b) While decreeing the suit, the trial Court imposed a condition that the plaintiff shall deposit the balance amount of sale consideration into the Court on or before 24.09.2007. The condition has not been complied as per the direction in the decree. However, a petition in I.A.No.272 of 2012 was filed in the suit by the plaintiff seeking to condone delay of 1432 days in depositing the amount of Rs.25,000. The respondent / defendant remained ex parte. However, the petition was dismissed by the trial Court.

                  c) Aggrieved by the order, the petitioner / plaintiff filed C.R.P.No.437 of 2016. Again in the revision petition, the respondent remained ex parte. After hearing the revision petitioner, the petition was allowed by this Court on 17.08.2022 permitting the petitioner / plaintiff to deposit the balance amount of sale consideration before the trial Court on or before 01.09.2022.

                  d) Thereafter, the plaintiff / decree holder filed E.P.No.16 of 2023 for execution of the decree dated 06.09.2007. The decree holder sought execution Court to :

                  (i) execute a registered sale deed in favour of the decree holder, if the judgment debtor fails to execute the same;

                  (ii) deliver the suit schedule property to the decree holder in case judgment debtor fails to do so and;

                  (iii) order attachment of amount of Rs.12,436/- being costs of the suit as well as the E.P. costs from out of the amount lying in the deposit in the Court to the credit of O.S.No.63 of 2007 to the same Court .

                  (e) During the course of execution, a sale deed was executed by the execution Court on 28.01.2025. Later, the execution Court ordered issue of warrant for delivery of the property on 08.01.2026.

                  (f) The revision petitioners, who are third parties to the execution proceedings, objected delivery of the property. They filed the present revision petition seeking to set aside the delivery warrant issued by the execution Court.

4. The revision petitioners mainly contended that the execution petition was filed 16 years after passing the decree. It is also further mainly contended that the execution Court ought not to have executed a registered sale deed because, as on the date of execution of the registered sale deed, the subject property was already owned by the revision petitioners as they bonafidely purchased the property from their vendor K.M.Naseer, under a registered sale deed dated 27.07.2015, who in turn purchased the said property from the respondent No.2 / judgment debtor / defendant and the person representing Prashanthi Old Age Home under a registered sale deed dated 23.04.2011. It is also contended that judgment debtor / defendant attested a registered gift deed executed by O.Chandrasekhar Reddy to Prashanthi Old Age Home.

5. Therefore, the revision petitioners contended that the title to the judgment debtor / defendant was duly passed to their vendor under the registered sale deed dated 23.04.2011, by which date there was no compliance of the condition in the decree in favour of the decree holder and consequently, even if the execution Court executes a registered sale deed in favour of the respondent No.2 herein, it does not convey title which respondent No.2 did not have as on the date of the execution of the sale deed by the execution Court.

6. It is also further seriously contended by the revision petitioners that there has been collusion between the respondent / plaintiff and defendant all through as can be seen from the events that took place. In this regard, it is elaborated that the agreement of sale is dated 01.06.2007, the suit was filed on 09.07.2007, the defendant remained ex parte and the suit was decreed on 06.09.2007 and later on, the condition to deposit the balance amount on or before 24.09.2007 was not complied and the plaintiff approached the trial Court seeking extension of time for deposit after long delay of 1432 days by filing a petition and then filing a revision petition against the order dismissing such petition by the trial Court and again the judgment debtor did not contest and the revision was allowed ex parte.

7. Therefore, it is vehemently contended by the revision petitioners that apart from want of title of the judgment debtor to be conveyed by Court for the purpose of enforcement of the decree for specific performance, there is well established collusion between the decree holder and the judgment debtor.

8. Simultaneously, with filing the present revision petition, the petitioners have taken steps by filing a separate petition under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. before the execution Court and also filing another petition under Section 151 C.P.C. seeking stay of further proceedings in the execution. Both are pending for consideration before the execution Court as per the representation made before this Court.

9. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted as in the grounds of the revision petition which are noted above.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 / decree holder contended that it is incorrect to state that the execution proceedings were initiated beyond the period of limitation in view of the order extending time for making deposit of the balance amount. He further submitted that since the proceedings before the execution Court are pending with reference to the petition filed under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. and the revision petitioners cannot raise the point of limitation here and the same also needs to be decided by the execution Court, this revision petition may be disposed of.

11. Though a notice was sent to the respondent No.2 to the address as given before the execution Court on 06.02.2026, it was returned on 10.03.2026 with endorsement “left without intimation’’. As the respondent No.2 has remained ex parte throughout, the learned counsels for the revision petitioners and the respondent No.1 requested to dispose of the revision petition on merits.

12. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners also submitted that the proceedings for delivery of possession by the execution Court may be ordered to be stayed till disposal of the petition under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C., as the proceedings would become infructuous if the property is delivered in pursuance of the warrant already issued.

13. As the execution Court raised the question of limitation at the time of numbering the execution petition and it is only after prima facie satisfaction of the explanation given for the delay in view of extending the time for payment of the balance amount of sale consideration, the execution petition was numbered. Therefore, the question of limitation for execution can be raised before the same Court for a decision on merits. As such, this Court is not going into determination of the said question at this juncture.

14. The allegations of (i) fraud and (ii) loss of title of the respondent No.1 over the property on his execution of the sale deed dated 23.04.2011 and consequently the execution Court not being able to convey better title to decree holder by executing the decree are the subject matter of decision by the execution Court in a petition pending before under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C. As such, at this juncture, this Court is not inclined to go into these questions, leaving it open to the execution Court to decide them on merits as per law.

15. So far, in view of the interim order of stay granted by this Court vide order dated 22.01.2026, the proceedings before the execution Court are stayed. As the petition for granting stay also is pending before the execution Court, it can take appropriate decision thereon.

16. Under these circumstances, the revision petition is disposed of directing the execution Court to dispose the petition filed seeking interim stay within one week from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and meanwhile not to execute the warrant and also to adjudicate the petition under Order XXI, Rule 97 C.P.C as early as possible.

There shall be no orders as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this civil revision petition shall stand closed.