1 APHC010470372024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3206] THURSDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE R RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 2551/2024 Between: Tanneru Koteswara Rao and Others ...PETITIONER(S) AND Bathula Srinivasa Rao ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. RATAN MOHAN MEDIDA Counsel for the Respondent: 1. R SUDHA RANI The Court made the following order: The respondent herein, claiming ownership of the suit schedule property filed a suit bearing O.S.No.80 of 2012, in the Court of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) Narasaraopet, for eviction of the petitioners herein from the said property. 2. The case of the respondent was that the land over which the house is situated, originally belonged to mother of the petitioners herein, and the same had been purchased by the respondent, by way of a deed of sale, dated 27.07.2007 after which the respondent had demolished the existing structure and had constructed a new house. This house is said to have been given on lease to the petitioners. Subsequently, the petitioners started denying 2 the title of the respondent over the property due to which the respondent initiated O.S.No.80 of 2012, for evicting the petitioners from the said property. 3. This suit is said to have been decreed and the first appeal filed against the said judgment in decree is also said to have been dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent had moved E.P.No.18 of 2023, for eviction of the petitioners from the suit schedule property and for handing over possession of the suit schedule property to the respondent. 4. The petitioners, at that stage filed E.A.No.302 of 2023, for appointment of an advocate commissioner to verify the physical features of the property. It is the case of the petitioners that, the property in question was land assigned in favour of their mother and as such, there can be no alienation of that assigned land and consequently, the sale deed, said to have been executed in favour of the respondent, is a void document. The petitioners contended that these facts could come out upon the appointment of an advocate commissioner to verify the extents of land etc., available on the ground. 5. This application was dismissed by the Executing Court, on 19.09.2024 holding that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree to verify whether there is jurisdiction in passing such orders or not. The Executing Court also took the view that the issue raised by the petitioners has been raised before the Trial Court, in the course of the suit and the said contention had already been rejected. The Executing Court also held that once such contentions have been rejected in the judgment/decree, the same cannot be agitated again. 6. This Court after going through the said order is in agreement with the said view that the issue that is sought to be raised by the petitioners is an issue which has already been decided against the petitioners in the judgment/decree of the Trial Court which has been affirmed in the appeal. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the Order of the 3 Trial Court and accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ________________________ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J. BSM 4 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2551 of 2024 06-02-2024 BSM