ORDER : Nagesh Bheemapaka, J. Aggrieved by the order in E.P. No. 08 of 2016 in O.S. No. 18 of 1986 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bellampalli, Mancherial District dated 04.08.2025 and the consequential Eviction Notice dated 21.08.2025, Revision Petitioners / Third Party occupants on the alleged plaint schedule of properties preferred this Civil Revision Petition. 2. Originally, the suit was instituted on the file of the District Munsif Court, Asifabad, by the Plaintiff Rama Rajam against Madipally Ramagoud and 17 others as defendants. The said suit was decreed on 29.08.1992, declaring plaintiff as owner of the suit schedule land in Sy. No.3/Paiki (3/9) admeasuring Acs. 2-75 cents situated at Akenapalli Village of Bellampalli Mandal and defendants were directed to dismantle the structures and to hand over vacant possession of the suit schedule land to plaintiff with future mense profits @ Rs. 1,000/- per year. Aggrieved thereby, defendants preferred AS No. 14 of 1992 before the Senior Civil Judge Court at Asifabad. The said Appeal was dismissed on 31.01.1998. Plaintiff filed E.P. No. 01 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge Court, Asifabad under Order XXI Rule 25 of CPC to issue warrant of delivery of possession of vacant land as per the decree. Meanwhile, the sole Decree Holder viz. Rama Rajaram died on 20.03.2001 and his LRs. Ram Salamma, Ram Pocham and Ram Kistaiah were brought on record as per orders in EA No. 01/2001 dated 15.06.2001. 2.1. The M.R.O., Bellampalli filed E.A. No. 03 of 2001 in E.P. No. 01 of 2000 in OS No. 18 of 1986 under Order XXI Rules 97 & 35 read with Section 151 CPC to adjudicate the claims of the Government over the land in Survey Nos. 3/6, 3/7 admeasuring Acs. 2.80 cents and Acs. 2.97 cents respectively and suit schedule land in Survey No. 3 Paiki (3/9) admeasuring Acs.2.75 cents situated at Akenapalli Village and to declare the Government as owner of the above said lands. This E.A. was dismissed with costs on 28.08.2001. Initially, the Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad issued a warrant to the Bailiff to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule land to the Decree Holder. This E.A. was dismissed with costs on 28.08.2001. Initially, the Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad issued a warrant to the Bailiff to deliver vacant possession of suit schedule land to the Decree Holder. The Bailiff filed a report on 23.07.2001 stating that warrant was returned unexecuted since pucca constructions of shops and residential quarters are there in the suit schedule land and praying for want of further specific orders for execution of the warrant. 2.2. The Decree Holder filed E.A. No. 05 of 2001 in E.P. No. 1 of 2000 in OS No. 18 of 1986 under Order XXI Rule 97(1) read with Section 151 CPC. to direct the Bailiff to remove the obstructions, if any made by third parties while executing the warrant of delivery of vacant possession of the suit schedule land, if necessary by taking assistance of the Police. This E.A. was allowed on 28.08.2001 and the Court ordered issuance of fresh warrant. Accordingly, a fresh warrant was issued to the Bailiff. However, the Bailiff filed a report on 15.09.2001 stating that in Survey No. 3 Paiki (3/9) in an extent of Ac.2.75 cents, there is no shopping complex under Survey No. 3 Paiki (3/6) and (3/7) and he certified and returned warrant along with report of Village Sarpanch and Executive Officer. The Decree Holder filed objections on 08.10.2001 smelling some foul play since the Bailiff at the first instance in his report dated 23.07.2001 stated that there are pucca constructions of shops and residential quarters and in his further report dated 15.09.2001, he stated that there is no shopping complex in the suit schedule land. 2.3. Meanwhile, the Mandal Revenue Officer, Bellampalli preferred AS No. 10 of 2001 before the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad against the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad dated 28.08.2001 in E.A. No. 03 of 2001. In this Appeal, initially, stay of all proceedings was granted and later, by order dated 06.06.2006, the order of the Junior Civil Judge, Asifabad dated 28.08.2001 was set aside and the matter was remanded to trial Court. Accordingly, E.A. No. 03 of 2001 was taken up for hearing and after fresh hearing, the same was dismissed on 27.09.2010. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the Mandal Revenue Officer filed AS No. 15 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Asifabad. After due hearing, the said Appeal was dismissed by order dated 28.10.2015. 2.4. Accordingly, E.A. No. 03 of 2001 was taken up for hearing and after fresh hearing, the same was dismissed on 27.09.2010. Aggrieved by this dismissal, the Mandal Revenue Officer filed AS No. 15 of 2010 before the Senior Civil Judge Court, Asifabad. After due hearing, the said Appeal was dismissed by order dated 28.10.2015. 2.4. While so, T. Mallamma and 42 others filed E.A. No. 04 of 2001 in E.P. No. 1 of 2000 in OS No. 18 of 1986 under Order XXI Rule 97(1) and Order XXI Rule 34 read with Section 151 CPC to adjudicate their claims over the suit schedule land bearing Survey Nos. 3/6 and 3/7 measuring Ac.0.-40 cts, and Ac.1.00 respectively situated at Revenue Village Akenpalli, Bellampalli Mandal to declare that they are in possession of the said lands having permanent residential structures thereon in view of allotment of the same by the Government. The said E.A. was dismissed on 28.08.2001. Later, as per the orders of the Principal District Judge, Adilabad, the case was received by transfer and renumbered as E.P. No. 08 of 2016 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Bellampalli. DHR No.2 died and his LRs. were brought on record as DHR Nos. 3 and 4. The Girdawar of Bellampalli Mandal filed a Memo CFR No. 418/2018 dated 23.07.2018 stating that Government preferred a Second Appeal before the High Court vide LAASSR No. 858 of 2017. However, no further information is given to the Court as to what orders were passed in the said Second Appeal. 2.5. The Decree Holder filed Memo dated 19.08.2016 relying on the decision of this Court in Dongala Venkaiah v. Dongala Raji Reddy , [ 2007(5) ALD 716 ] praying the Court to issue and execute the warrant of delivery of possession to Bailiff by demolishing the constructions, if any, over the suit schedule land, which are constructed even prior to the suit or after filing of the suit. The Junior Civil Judge, Bellampalli, after perusing the entire record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, held that it is the duty of the Executing Court to execute the decree of the trial Court as per the judgment and decree in OS No. 18 of 1986 dated 29.08.1992. The Junior Civil Judge, Bellampalli, after perusing the entire record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, held that it is the duty of the Executing Court to execute the decree of the trial Court as per the judgment and decree in OS No. 18 of 1986 dated 29.08.1992. It was held that decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Gangadhar vs B. G. Rajalingam ( AIR 1996 SC 780 ), aptly applies to the facts of the case on hand. Following the pronouncements of the Hon’ble Apex Court and also this Court, the Junior Civil Judge directed to issue fresh warrant to Bailiff to detect the actual suit schedule land i.e. Sy.No. 3 Paiki (3/9) situated at Akenpalli village, Bellampalli Mandal, by taking assistance of the Tahsildar, Revenue Inspector, Mandal Surveyor, Panchayat Secretary, Village Executive Officer. The said officials are directed to assist the Bailiff in identifying the suit schedule land. The Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bellampalli was directed to give necessary protection to Bailiff in implementing the orders of the Court. The Deputy Executive Engineer (Electrical), Bellampalli is also directed to depute his staff to assist the Bailiff. The Bailiff was directed to execute the warrant in the presence of Gram Panchayat Officials, Revenue Officials and three village elders by conducting panchnama with regard to delivery of vacant possession to Decree Holders 3 and 4 as contemplated under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC. Accordingly, the E.P. was allowed on 22.08.2024 directing the Judgment Debtors to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule land to DHRs 3 and 4 and the officials mentioned above. 2.6. Pursuant to the order in E.P. No. 08 of 2016 dated 22.08.2024, the Junior Civil Judge at Bellampalli issued a Warrant to the bailiff to deliver possession of the suit schedule land (under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC) on 04.08.2025. A Notice to House Occupants (execution notice) dated 21.08.2025 was issued by the Junior Civil Judge Court, Bellampalli, directing them to vacate the houses/structures voluntarily within three days. In the said notice, it is also mentioned that if they failed to vacate, the Bailiff/Field Assistant with the assistance of Police, Revenue, Panchayat and TSNPDCL officials and other officers would proceed to demolish the structures and evict the occupants at their costs and risk as per the Court's directions. Challenging the warrant issued under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC. Challenging the warrant issued under Order XXI Rule 35 of CPC. by the Junior Civil Judge, Bellampalli in E.P. No. 08 of 2016 dated 04.08.2025 and the Notice to the Occupants dated 21.08.2025, this Civil Revision is preferred. 3. The main contentions of Petitioners are: i) The impugned Warrant is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to CPC. ii) The E.P. is filed under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC., but it ought to have been filed under Order XXI Rule 36 CPC. since the property is in occupation of occupants. iii) The E.P. is not maintainable without deciding whether E.P. petitioners are legal heirs of the original DHR or not. iv) Since the revision petitioners are not JDRs, they are not bound by the decree unless their claims, rights, title etc., are determined. v) The very identification of the suit schedule property is in dispute and unless it is identified the question of executing the judgment and decree in OS No. 18 of 1986 dt. 29.08.1992 does not arise. vi) The Judgment and Decree granting a declaration of title is subject to the 12 years limitation period u/Art. 136 of the Limitation Act for its execution. vii) The suit schedule property was already assumed by the then MRO, Bellampally, vide Proceedings No. D/52/85 dt. 29.08.1989 from the original DGR Ram Rajam. Hence issuing the impugned eviction notice is illegal and without application of mind on the part of the court below. The Tahsildar, Bellampally resumed the land in question since the DHR had not cultivated the land from the date of assignment5. viii) As per Revenue records one Sirupally Rajam s/o Rajamallu was the pattedar of the land of Ac.2.50 cts, in 3/9 Paiki, whereas the DHR No.1 Ram Rajam is shown as Pattedar of the land in question. ix) The suit schedule property is not tallying with judgment and decree and with the Adangal/Pahani and hence it is not executable before eye of law. x) Ordering demolition of the houses of the revision petitioners is nothing but infringing the rights of the petitioners guaranteed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. xi) The boundaries of the such schedule land in the warrant and the boundaries mentioned in the Mandal Surveyor Report are not tallying on Northern side and Southern side and hence the decree is not executable. xi) The boundaries of the such schedule land in the warrant and the boundaries mentioned in the Mandal Surveyor Report are not tallying on Northern side and Southern side and hence the decree is not executable. xii) As per plaint schedule of property the land is in an extent of Ac.2-75 cts, whereas as per the Mandal Survey Report dt. 09.092004 it is Ac 2-30 cts. Hence the judgment and decree not executable. 4. Respondents-DHRs (LRs of original DHR) filed counter-affidavit rebutting the contentions of revision petitioners. After narrating the factors that led to filing of the present E.P., they contend that all the issues relating to boundaries of suit schedule land; extent of the suit schedule land; validity of these respondents as LRs. of the original DHR etc. are all raised and decided in the suit/appeal itself. They are no more res integra. Hence, revision petitioners are estopped from raising the issues which were already decided and settled. One Smt. T. Mallamma and 42 others, watching from the sidelines, filed EA No. 4 of 2001 under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC requesting to adjudicate their claims to the extent of 40 guntas in Sy.No. 3/6 and Ac.1,00 in Sy.No. 3/7 of revenue Village Ankapally, which was dismissed after due enquiry by order dated 28.08.2001. The said order has become final. The trial Court, noticing all the facts, overruled every objection by order dated 22.08.2024 by a detailed order and allowed Execution Petition directing JDRs. to deliver vacant possession of the suit schedule land. Despite this order, some other objections are created to drag on the execution. 4.1. It is stated, the present Revision is not tenable. The 1 st petitioner claiming to be owner and possessor of open plot to the extent of Ac.0-3 gts, allegedly purchased from one Sama Raji Reddy S/o Malla Reddy under a Sada Bynama and later, constructed a house with the permission of Gram Panchayat. The said Sama Raji Reddy is not the owner of the property. Date of sada bynama is not mentioned. So also, the claims of other petitioners are based on bogus documents. Respondents 2 to 4 pray for dismissal of the Revision in view of the above submissions. 5. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Gummadavelly, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for respondents. 6. Date of sada bynama is not mentioned. So also, the claims of other petitioners are based on bogus documents. Respondents 2 to 4 pray for dismissal of the Revision in view of the above submissions. 5. Heard Sri Venkateswarlu Gummadavelly, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for respondents. 6. The proposition in the judgments in Silverline Forum Pvt Ltd. v. Rajiv Trust , (1998) 3 SCC 723 ; N.S.S. Narayana Sarma v. Goldstone Exports (P) Ltd. , [ (2002) 1 SCC 662 ] ; Sammer Singh v. Abdul Rab , [ (2015) 1 SCC 379 ] is to the effect that even third parties can offer resistance and object delivery of possession in execution of decree and judgment. This proposition is not in dispute in the present Revision. The point is they are estopped from raising the objections which were previously raised and rejected by the trial Court and the appellate Court. 7. It is to be noticed that Execution Petition pertains to 2000 i.e. more than 25 year-old, pending for execution. The suit was instituted 39 years back and was decreed on 29.08.1992. Thus a long period was over to implement the decree. The person who filed the suit is not more and his Legal representatives have come on record. The extant E.P. was filed in 2000 and several Execution Applications were filed on some ground or other to drag on the execution. 8. It is the well-settled principle: Iustitiam morari iniustitia and est (to delay justice is injustice) and Qui iustitiam moratur iustitiam negat (he who delays justice denies justice). Justice Delayed is Justice Denied (Lex dilationes abhorret). Nearly four decades have elapsed since filing the original suit. The original Plaintiff/Decree Holder did not reap the fruits. His Legal Heirs one of whom is 75-year-old also cannot secure the fruits of their hard work if the persons claiming under one document or other are permitted to interfere and drag on the execution. 9. This Revision is devoid of merits. This Revision is a futile exercise made by third parties who never chosen to come on record either at the stage of suit or in Appeal or at least in the stage of hearing Execution Petition, simply to drag on the execution and enjoy ineligible fruits, after execution warrant is issued. 10. The CRP is dismissed accordingly. No costs. 11. This Revision is a futile exercise made by third parties who never chosen to come on record either at the stage of suit or in Appeal or at least in the stage of hearing Execution Petition, simply to drag on the execution and enjoy ineligible fruits, after execution warrant is issued. 10. The CRP is dismissed accordingly. No costs. 11. Consequently, miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.