NAGA LAXMI Vs. BICHAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The C.R.P. is directed against an order passed in E.A.No.86 of 1998 in E.P.No.38 of 1996 in O.S.No.92 of 1994 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Sanga Reddy, Medak District.

(2.) The revision petitioners are the claimants, who filed E.A.No.86 of 1998 in E.P.No.38 of 1996 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge at Sanga Reddy, Medak District, which was dismissed by order dated 30-7-1999. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is filed.

(3.) Mr. Srinath, Counsel representing Mr. V. Venkataramana, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners, had taken me through the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Court below and had made submissions on merits. Mr. E. Ramanatham, Counsel representing the second respondent-decreeholder, had raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the C.R.P. The learned Counsel had contended that an application was made under Order 21 Rule 58 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. to enquire into their claim and the said application was dismissed by the Court below. The learned Counsel has drawn my attention to the provisions of Order 21 Rule 58 C.P.C and had contended that inasmuch as the order has to be treated as a decree, the remedy is only by way of appeal and the remedy by way of revision is a misconceived one.