( 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. ( 4 ) IT would be relevant to note Order 21 rule 58 (4), which reads as follows:"where any claim or objection has been adjudicated upon under this rule, the order made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. " ( 5 ) THUS, it is clear that when a claim has been adjudicated upon, the remedy is only by way of appeal and a revision under section 115 C. P. C. is not maintainable. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not want to enter into further merits of the matter. " ( 5 ) THUS, it is clear that when a claim has been adjudicated upon, the remedy is only by way of appeal and a revision under section 115 C. P. C. is not maintainable. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, I do not want to enter into further merits of the matter. Though it was brought to my notice that the decree is a decree on the strength of a mortgage and preliminary and final decrees have also been passed and at the stage of execution this claim was thought of only with a view to delay the execution, I do not want to go into these aspects for the reason that I have taken the view that the revision itself is not maintainable and this remedy perused by the petitioners is a misconceived remedy. ( 7 ) THE C. R. P. is dismissed. With costs.