ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mr. P.V. Krishnamachary, learned counsel for the petitioner - judgment debtor No.2 and Mrs. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein - decree holders. Despite service of notice, there was no representation on behalf of respondent No.4 - judgment debtor No.1. 2. The petitioner herein is arrayed as judgment debtor No.2 in E.P. No.298 of 2019. He was added as per the orders dated 02.08.2022 in E.A. No.203 of 2021, while respondent No.4 is judgment debtor No.1. RespondentNos.1 to 3 are the decree-holders. FACTS: 3. Originally, respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed a suit, vide O.S.No.94 of 2016, for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 29.04.2013 against respondent No.4 herein contending that respondent No.4 is the owner and possessor of the land admeasuring 4114 square yards in Survey No.53, situated at Karkhanagadda (New Gunj) locality along with two other persons, by name, Mr. Billa Vijayender Reddy and Mr. Kandi Thirupathi Reddy, under a registered sale deed bearing document No.5696 of 2013. Apart from that, respondent No.4 herein is also owner of land admeasuring 430 square yards in the very same survey number along with Mr. Kandi Thirupathi Reddy under a registered sale deed bearing document No.5694 of 2013. Both the extents form a compact block. Respondent No.4 has 50% share in 4114 and 430 square yards of land i.e., he is the owner of total extent of 2057 and 215 square yards, respectively. (ii) Having received the share in oral partition with co-owners, respondent No.4 offered to sell his share of land to an extent of 14 guntas in the second bit covered under the sale deed bearing document No.5694 of 2013, an extent of 1522 square yards in ‘A’ bit covered under sale deed bearing document No.5696 of 2013 and accordingly executed an agreement of sale dated 29.04.2013 for a sale consideration of Rs.70.00 lakhs. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 paid an amount of Rs.64.00 lakhs to respondent No.4, who acknowledged the receipt of the same. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are also ready to pay remaining balance amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs, but respondent No.4 did not come forward to comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale. Therefore, after issuing legal notice, dated 01.04.2016 and receipt of reply thereof, respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed the aforesaid suit seeking specific performance. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are also ready to pay remaining balance amount of Rs.6.00 lakhs, but respondent No.4 did not come forward to comply with the terms and conditions of the said agreement of sale. Therefore, after issuing legal notice, dated 01.04.2016 and receipt of reply thereof, respondent Nos.1 to 4 filed the aforesaid suit seeking specific performance. (iii) Respondent No.4 herein remained ex parte in the said suit. Learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar on consideration of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, decreed the said suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.10.2016 directing respondent Nos.1 to 3 to deposit balance sale consideration of Rs.6.00 lakhs into the Court within two (02) weeks from the date of judgment by directing respondent No.4 herein to receive the same and execute and register sale deed in favour of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein in respect of suit schedule property within forty five (45) days, failing which, they are at liberty to get the sale deed registered through Court process. The petitioner herein is not a party to the suit proceedings. 4. Since respondent No.4 did not come forward to execute a register sale deed, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an execution petition vide E.P. No.298 of 2019 seeking a direction to respondent No.4 to execute a register sale deed in their favour in respect of said extent of Ac.0.14 guntas in Survey No.53, situated at Karkanagadda locality, Karimnagar and on his failure to execute a registered sale deed in their favour through Court. While so, the petitioner herein was added as judgment debtor No.2 in the said E.P. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER BEFORE EXECUTION COURT: 5. The petitioner herein being judgment debtor No.2 filed two Interlocutory Applications of which one is under Order - XXI, Rule - 99 read with Section - 151 of CPC, vide E.A. No.94 of 2023, to stall/stop respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein in dispossessing her from the schedule de jure property, and another vide E.A. No.75 of 2023 under Order - IX, Rule - 7 of CPC to set aside the ex parte order dated 16.09.2022 by permitting her to file counter on the following grounds : i. She had purchased the subject property from respondent No.2 - judgment debtor No.1, Dr. Kandi Thirupathi Reddy and Mr. Kandi Thirupathi Reddy and Mr. Billa Vijayender Reddy under registered sale deed bearing document Nos.7294, 7295 and 7296 of 2021, all dated 05.05.2021 for a valid consideration; ii. From the date of purchase, she is in serene possession of the property without any disturbance; iii. After knowing the aforesaid proceedings, she impleaded herself in the E.P. vide order dated 02.08.2022 in E.A. No.203 of 2021; CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 3: 6. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein filed counter opposing the said applications contending that the petitioner was already party to the said E.P. and that she was set ex parte on 16.09.2022 as she did not answer the notice. The petitioner purchased the property from respondent No.4 during pendente lite. There is no material to show that the petitioner is in possession of the suit property. Thus, both the petitions fail and the same are liable to be dismissed. FINDING OF EXECUTION COURT: 7. Vide order dated 12.02.2024, trial Court dismissed both the applications filed by the petitioner herein on the following grounds : i. The petitioner herein and respondent No.4 having full knowledge about the suit litigation in respect of the property ventured into registered transaction with an intention to see that respondent Nos.1 to 3 do not execute the decree. ii. The petitioner does not have any independent claim. iii. The petitioner was set ex parte in the E.P. for not filing any counter or objections. SUBMISSIONS ON BEAHLF OF THE PETITIONER: 8. Challenging the said orders dated 12.02.2024, the petitioner filed both the revisions i.e., C.R.P. No.1105 of 2024 challenging the order dated 12.02.2024 in E.A. No.94 of 2023 in E.P. No.298 of 2019, while C.R.P. No.1416 of 2024 challenging the order dated 12.02.2024 in E.A. No.75 of 2023 in the very same E.P. on the following grounds : i. The petitioner already paid entire sale consideration, basing on the fabricated documents, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are trying to dispossess her from the suit schedule property; ii. The suit is a collusive suit and the respondents have no right to file suit and also E.P. iii. When the title is in dispute, the trial Court ought to conduct full-fledged trial by giving ample opportunity to the title holder; and iv. Without considering all the said aspects, the trial Court dismissed the said applications erroneously. SUBMISSIONS ON BEAHLF OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 3: 9. Whereas, Mrs. When the title is in dispute, the trial Court ought to conduct full-fledged trial by giving ample opportunity to the title holder; and iv. Without considering all the said aspects, the trial Court dismissed the said applications erroneously. SUBMISSIONS ON BEAHLF OF RESPONDENT Nos.1 to 3: 9. Whereas, Mrs. Manjari S. Ganu, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3, would contend that the petitioner failed to explain satisfactory reason to set aside ex parte order dated 16.09.2022, did not file any document to show she is in possession of the subject property. Therefore, on consideration of the entire material only, learned Executing Court dismissed both E.As., and there is no error in the impugned orders. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT: C.R.P. No.1416 OF 2024: 10. The aforesaid rival submissions would reveal that respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed the aforesaid suit vide O.S. No.94 of 2016 against respondent No.4 herein for specific performance. Respondent No.4 was set ex parte. Therefore, the said suit was decreed on 18.10.2016. Thereafter, respondent Nos.1 to 3 filed an Execution Petition on 29.04.2019 vide E.P. No.94 of 2016 seeking a direction to respondent No.4 to execute a register sale deed in their favour in respect of subject property, and in case of his failure to execute a register sale deed, Court may be pleased to execute a register sale deed. (i) During pendency of the said E.P., the petitioner herein is claiming that she has purchased the land admeasuring 1522 square yards, 2059 square yards and 430 square yards in Survey No.53, situated at Karkhanagadda locality, Karimnagar from respondent No.4, Mr. Kandi Thirupathi Reddy and Mr. Billa Vijayender Reddy under three sale deeds bearing document Nos.7294, 7295 and 7296 of 2021, all dated 05.05.2021. Thereafter, on coming to know about pendency of the aforesaid E.P., she has filed an application vide E.A. No.203 of 2021 to implead her as judgment debtor No.2. The same was allowed on 02.08.2022. Thus, she was impleaded as judgment debtor No.2 in the said E.P. She was set ex parte on 16.09.2022. Thereafter, on coming to know about pendency of the aforesaid E.P., she has filed an application vide E.A. No.203 of 2021 to implead her as judgment debtor No.2. The same was allowed on 02.08.2022. Thus, she was impleaded as judgment debtor No.2 in the said E.P. She was set ex parte on 16.09.2022. She has filed an application under Order - IX, Rule - 7 of CPC vide E.A. No.75 of 2023 in E.P. No.298 of 2019 in O.S. No.94 of 2016 to set aside ex parte order dated 16.09.2022 by permitting her to file counter in E.P. (ii) She has filed the said E.A. No.75 of 2023 on 19.06.2023 contending that she was suffered from cold and motions, due to which, she could not attend the Court, as a result she was set ex parte. Her absence on 16.09.2022 is purely accidental and not intentional. (iii) As discussed above, though she was set ex parte on 16.09.2022, she has filed the aforesaid application vide E.A. No.75 of 2023 under Order - IX, Rule - 7 of CPC to set aside the ex parte order only on 19.06.2023. She has not filed any document before the Executing Court in proof of the same including medical certificates. There is no explanation, much less plausible explanation for the delay of about one year in filing the said application. The petitioner has to explain satisfactory reasons for the delay of about one year in filing the petition to set aside ex parte order. In the present case, she failed to explain the delay. Except stating that she was suffering from cold and motions, she has not explained the delay and she has not filed any proof. (iv) On consideration of the said aspects only, the Executing Court dismissed E.A. No.75 of 2023. There is no error, much less jurisdictional error in the said order. Therefore, C.R.P. No.1416 of 2024 is liable to be dismissed. C.R.P. No.1105 OF 2024: 11. The petitioner herein filed another application vide E.A. No.94 of 2022 in E.P. No.298 of 2019 under Order - XXI, Rule - 99 read with 151 of C.P.C. seeking appropriate orders by stalling/stopping/ceasing respondent Nos.1 to 3 - decree holders in dispossessing her from schedule de jure property. C.R.P. No.1105 OF 2024: 11. The petitioner herein filed another application vide E.A. No.94 of 2022 in E.P. No.298 of 2019 under Order - XXI, Rule - 99 read with 151 of C.P.C. seeking appropriate orders by stalling/stopping/ceasing respondent Nos.1 to 3 - decree holders in dispossessing her from schedule de jure property. (i) In the affidavit filed in support of the said application, she has narrated about the purchase of the subject property under the aforesaid three (03) sale deeds. She came to know about pendency of the execution proceedings and, thereafter, she along with her spouse approached respondent No.4,w ho gave a befit reply. Her Vendors, Mr. Kandi Thirupathi Reddy and Mr. Billa Vijayender Reddy pleaded ignorance about pendency of the said E.P. Thereafter, respondent No.4 - Judgment debtor No.1 approached her stating that there are disputes between respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.4 with regard to a debt and respondent Nos.1 to 3 have obtained his signature on blank papers, created it as agreement of sale and filed the aforesaid suit. He will sort out the said issue with respondent Nos.1 to 3 and E.P. proceedings will not play any adverse role to the petitioner. Thereafter, she came to know that respondent No.4 - judgment debtor No.1 is not contesting the case, and on coming to know the same, she has filed a petition vide E.A. No.203 of 2021 to implead her as judgment debtor No.2 and the same was allowed. (ii) According to her, respondent Nos.1 to 3 and respondent Nos.4 colluded with each other and obtained the aforesaid decree, to usurp the subject property purchased by her. Therefore, she filed the said application to pass orders by stalling/stopping/ceasing respondent Nos.1 to 3 - decree holders in dispossessing her from the de jure property. (iii) In her affidavit filed in support of the said E.A., the petitioner has not mentioned the date on which respondent Nos.1 to 3 tried to dispossess her. Except the aforesaid three (03) sale deeds, she has not filed any other document. She is a pendente lite purchaser. (iv) As discussed above, the said suit was decreed on 18.10.2016 and execution petition was filed on 29.04.2019. The Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner vide E.A. No.203 of 2021 to implead her as judgment debtor No.2 was allowed on 02.08.2022. She is a pendente lite purchaser. (iv) As discussed above, the said suit was decreed on 18.10.2016 and execution petition was filed on 29.04.2019. The Interlocutory Application filed by the petitioner vide E.A. No.203 of 2021 to implead her as judgment debtor No.2 was allowed on 02.08.2022. Thereafter, she was set ex parte on 16.09.2022 and she filed a petition to set aside ex parte order on 19.06.2023. She has filed the present petition on 10.07.2023. (v) Vide the impugned order dated 12.02.2024, learned Principal District Judge, Karimnagar dismissed the said application. Perusal of the said order would reveal that the Executing Court directed decree-holders to file link documents under which they purchased the subject land. Certified Copies of the said documents bearing No.5694, 5695 and 5696 of 2013 were filed. Learned Executing Court referred the description of the property etc., in the impugned order. (vi) In paragraph No.17 of the impugned order, dated 12.02.2024 in E.A. No.94 of 2023, learned Executing Court observed that when the plans appended to two sale deeds bearing document Nos.5694 and 5696 of 2013 and the aforesaid two sale deeds of the petitioner i.e., document Nos.7294 and 7296 of 2021 are perused, it is clear that vide document No.7296 of 2021, the petitioner purchased entire property covered by the document No.5694 of 2013 and vide document No.7296 of 2021, she purchased an extent of 1522 square yards within the clear boundaries, which is part of subject matter of document No.5696 of 2013. Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are claiming to have purchased part of land covered under document Nos.5694 and 5696 of 2013 within the given boundaries. (vii) Referring to the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court, learned Executing Court observed that the petitioner had full knowledge about the suit litigation in respect of the property ventured into registered transaction with respondent No.4 and others and the transaction entered with them is only to see that respondent Nos.1 to 3 do not execute the decree. Learned Executing Court also gave a finding that the other objection raised by the petitioner herein that the subject property is not identifiable on the ground that the plans appended to each sale deed of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the sale deeds of the petitioner would clearly show the property claimed by them. Learned Executing Court also gave a finding that the other objection raised by the petitioner herein that the subject property is not identifiable on the ground that the plans appended to each sale deed of respondent Nos.1 to 3 and the sale deeds of the petitioner would clearly show the property claimed by them. Therefore, the petition does not require any inquiry, like in a title suit and the petitioner does not have any independent claim. She is claiming only through judgment debtor No.2 and others to avoid execution of decree. With the said observations, the Executing Court dismissed the said application. (viii) Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present revision. (ix) It is relevant to note that Order - XXI, Rule - 99 of CPC deals with ‘dispossession by decree holder or purchaser’, and it says that where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property or, where such property has been sold in execution of a decree, by the purchaser thereof, he may make an application to the court complaining of such dispossession, and that where any such application is made, the court shall proceed to adjudicate upon the application in accordance with the provisions herein contained. (x) Order - XXI, Rule - 103 of CPC deals with ‘orders to be treated as decrees’, and it says that Where any application has been adjudicated upon under rule 98 or rule 100 the other made thereon shall have the same force and be subject to the same conditions as to an appeal or otherwise as if it were a decree. Therefore, the petitioner has to file an appeal. She cannot file a revision under Section - 115 of C.P.C. (xi) Section - 115 of CPC deals with ‘revision’ and as per subsection (2), the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. She cannot file a revision under Section - 115 of C.P.C. (xi) Section - 115 of CPC deals with ‘revision’ and as per subsection (2), the High Court shall not, under this section, vary or reverse any decree or order against which an appeal lies either to the High Court or to any Court subordinate thereto. Thus, there is prohibition to file a revision under Section - 115 of C.P.C. (xii) In S. Rajeswari v. S.N. Kulasekaran, (2006) 4 SCC 412 , the Apex Court held that order passed under Order - XXI Rule 97 CPC must be treated as a decree against which only an appeal lies, and revision application is not maintainable in view of clear prohibition contained in Section - 115 (2) of CPC. Revisional Court cannot act contrary to express provision of Section - 115 (2) and entertain revision on the ground of cutting short litigation or to avoid injustice. (xiii) In Seethakathi Trust Madras v. Krishnaveni, (2022) 3 SCC 150 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, it was a case where bona fide purchaser for value without notice of the prior contract long prior to institution of suit for specific performance and that the same cannot be enforced against such purchaser or their transferees as they would fall within exception of transferee for value who had paid money in good faith and without notice of original contract. But, in the present case, the subject suit was filed in the year 2016 and the same was decreed on 18.10.2016. Execution Petition was filed 29.04.2019, and the petitioner is claiming that she purchased the subject under three registered sale deeds dated 05.05.2021. Therefore, the principle laid down in the said case is inapplicable to the facts of the present case. (xiv) On consideration of the aforesaid facts only and also the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Rahul S. Shah v. Jinendra Kumar Gandhi [2021 (3) ALD 68 SC], learned Executing Court dismissed the said E.A. It is a reasoned order and well-founded. It does not deserve interference by this Court in the present revision. (xv) As discussed above, the impugned order is a decree. The petitioner has to prefer an appeal. She cannot file a revision. It does not deserve interference by this Court in the present revision. (xv) As discussed above, the impugned order is a decree. The petitioner has to prefer an appeal. She cannot file a revision. There is clear prohibition under Section - 115 (2) of C.P.C. Therefore, the present revision (C.R.P. No.1416 of 2024) is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 12. CONCLUSION: In view of the aforesaid discussion, both these Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revisions shall stand closed.