ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mr. Ashok Reddy Kanathala, learned counsel for the petitioners herein - Judgment Debtor Nos.2 & 3 and Mr. Vijay B. Paropkari, learned counsel for respondent No.1 - Decree Holder. 2. All these revisions arise out of E.P.No.43 of 2024 (Old E.P. No.58 of 1984) and the parties therein are one and the same. Therefore, these revisions were heard together and are being disposed of by way of common order. 3. The petitioners herein and respondent Nos.2 to 11 are the judgment debtors in E.P. No.43 of 2024, while respondent No.1 herein is the decree holder. 4. C.R.P. No.3643 of 2025 is filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal in E.P. N o.43 of 2024 (Old E.P. No.58 of 1984) in O.S. No.389 of 1969. The said E.P. is filed for enforcing the judgment and decree dated 28.09.1971 in O.S. No.389 of 1969. Vide the said order dated 22.09.2025, learned Executing Court allowed the said E.P. directing the petitioners herein - judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 to execute and register sale deed in favour of respondent No.1 - decree holder or his assignee within two (02) from the date of said order, failing which the decree holder or his assignee is entitled to take steps in accordance with law under Order - 21, Rule - 34 of C.P.C. for execution of sale deed. 5. In the E.P., it is contended by respondent No.1 - decree holder that the appeal preferred by him vide C.C.C.A. No.190 of 1972 against the decree dated 28.09.1971 in O.S. No.361 of 1969, was ended in compromise on 20.07.1976 in terms of C.M.P. No.3738 of 1976. Judgment debtor Nos.1 to 3 failed to execute and register the sale deed as per the terms of the compromise decree in the said CCCA. Meanwhile, judgment debtor No.1 (respondent No.2 herein) died, leaving behind judgment debtor Nos.2, 3 and 7 to 9 as his legal representatives. The description of the properties shown in the E.P.schedule is as under: i) The land admeasuring Acs.6.03 guntas in Survey No.130, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Taluq, with boundaries North: Pattia Land of Harijans; South: Survey No.131; East: Survey No.129; and West: Hyderabad-Medchal Main Road. The description of the properties shown in the E.P.schedule is as under: i) The land admeasuring Acs.6.03 guntas in Survey No.130, Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Taluq, with boundaries North: Pattia Land of Harijans; South: Survey No.131; East: Survey No.129; and West: Hyderabad-Medchal Main Road. ii) The land admeasuring Acs.2.00 guntas intricately contiguous to Survey No.131 on the southern side, with boundaries North: Survey No.130, South: Survey No.131, East: Survey No.129 and West: Hyderabad - Medchal Main Road. iii) The land admeasuring Acs.12.36 guntas immediately contiguous Survey No.129 on the eastern side with boundaries, North: Patta land of Harijans; South: Portion of Survey No.129; East: Survey No.128; and West: Survey Nos.130 and 131. All the aforesaid lands are situated at Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Taluq, Rangareddy District, making a total extent of Acs.20.39 guntas. 6. As far as C.R.P. No.4173 of 2025 is concerned, in the said E.P., respondent No.1 - decree holder filed E.A. No.254 of 2023 under Section - 47 read with 151 of CPC seeking a direction to the judgment debtors to convey land admeasuring Acs.1.15 guntas from out of the land possessed by them covered by Survey No.131/Part to fulfill the terms of compromise dated 21.02.1985 contending as follows: a) During pendency of the E.P., the decree-holder entered into compromise with the judgment debtors in connection with conveying land to him. As per the terms of compromise arrived between them and recorded by this Court on 21.02.1985, the judgment debtors have to convey the land admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas in Survey No.128, Acs.6.03 guntas in Survey No.130 and Ac.2.37 guntas in Survey No.131 of Kandlakoya Village, making a total extent of Acs.12.00 guntas. b) Pursuant to the same, the decree holder got validated the land of Acs.12.00 guntas in his favour and obtained pattadar passbook under Section 5A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971, by paying necessary stamp duty and registration charges vide File No.C/7/1992, dated30.06.1992. c) The Judgment Debtors filed appeal vide proceedings No.C/580/1993 before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy District East under Section 5 of the Act challenging the order dated 25.09.1993 of the Mandal Revenue Officer, and the same was dismissed. d) As against the RDO order, the judgment debtors filed revision in file No.D5/8397/1994 before the Joint Collector, who in turn, vide order dated 04.12.2000 dismissed the same. d) As against the RDO order, the judgment debtors filed revision in file No.D5/8397/1994 before the Joint Collector, who in turn, vide order dated 04.12.2000 dismissed the same. e) Challenging the said order, the judgment debtors filed W.P. No.3300 of 2001 before this Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.10.2001. Against the said dismissal order, the judgment debtors preferred writ appeal vide W.A.No.1812 of 2001, which was allowed vide judgment dated 07.02.2005. As against the same, the SLP No.10907 of 2005 filed by the decree holder was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2015. f) Thereafter, the decree-holder filed E.A. No.744 of 2015 to execute sale deed in his favour in respect of petition schedule property as per terms of compromise dated 21.02.1985. The said petition was dismissed on 22.10.2018. g) As against the said order, the decree holder filed C.R.P. No.329 of 2019 and the same was allowed vide order dated 02.08.2022. h) Against the said order dated 02.08.2022, the judgment debtors filed SLP No.16694-16695 of 2022 and the same were dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2022. i) Therefore, the decree-holder filed E.A.(SR) No.3180 of 2023 to restore E.P. No.58 of 1984 to its original number and the same is restored. j) After restoration of the said E.P., an Advocate Commissioner was appointed vide order dated 17.08.2023 to find out exact extent of E.P. schedule and to note down its physical features with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. k) As per Advocate Commissioner’s report, an extent of As.05.16 guntas is available in Survey No.130 as against Acs.06.03 guntas since Ac.0.19 guntas was acquired by LAO for laying NH-44 and another extent of Ac.0.08 guntas was acquired for laying Outer Ring Road. l) As per the Advocate Commissioner’s report, an extent of Acs.2.01 guntas is available in Survey No.131 as against Acs.3.00 guntas. m)An extent of Acs.3.00 guntas is available in Survey No.128 and, thus, in total only an extent of Acs.10.17 guntas, and thereby the decree holder was put to loss an extent of Acs.1.23 guntas in the following manner: Sl.no. Description Measurement i) Land to be conveyed by J.Drs. Acs. 12.00 guntas ii) Land available for execution Acs. 10.17 guntas Deficit Acs. 1.23 guntas n) The judgment debtors possessed the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.131/Part. Description Measurement i) Land to be conveyed by J.Drs. Acs. 12.00 guntas ii) Land available for execution Acs. 10.17 guntas Deficit Acs. 1.23 guntas n) The judgment debtors possessed the land to an extent of Acs.2.00 guntas in Survey No.131/Part. o) At the time of acquisition of land, the judgment debtors did not bring the said facts of Land Reforms Tribunal Proceedings. Therefore, notices were not issued to the decree holder to claim compensation, but the judgment debtors claimed compensation. Thus, the judgment debtors are bound to convey land admeasuring Acs.1.13 guntas, and in respect of remaining extent of Ac.0.08 guntas, he will claim compensation amount which is in the hands of the Land Acquisition Officer. 7. The judgment debtors did not choose to file counter despite receipt of notice. However, the petitioners filed counter in E.A. Nos.744 of 2015 and 745 of 2015 and the same were considered as part of record. 8. Vide order dated 22.09.2025, the learned Executing Court allowed E.A. No.254 of 2023, holding that the judgment debtors shall make good the loss of decree holder by applying the principles of just, fair, equity and good conscience. 9. Challenging the said order dated 22.09.2025 in E.A. No.254 of 2023, the petitioners - judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 filed C.R.P. No.4173 of 2025. 10. As far as C.R.P. No.4177 of 2025 is concerned, in the said E.P. No.43 of 2024 (Old E.P. No.58 of 1984), the decree holder filed E.A. No.744 of 2015 under Order - XXI, Rule - 32 (5) read with 151 of CPC seeking to execute and register sale deed in his favour in respect to petition schedule property in terms of order dated 21.02.1985 in E.P. No.58 of 1984, reiterating all the aforesaid facts contended as follows. i) While allowing the W.A. No.1812 of 2001, the Division Bench of this Court held that under Section - 5A of the Act, compromise decree could not have been validated in the absence of execution of sale deed pursuant to the compromise decree passed in E.P. No.58 of 1984. ii) The judgment debtors also took the same stand before this Court and their stand is that the order dated 21.02.1985 was not executed and consequently no registered sale deed was executed in his favour and as such, no proceedings can be issued in his favour under Section - 5A of the Act. ii) The judgment debtors also took the same stand before this Court and their stand is that the order dated 21.02.1985 was not executed and consequently no registered sale deed was executed in his favour and as such, no proceedings can be issued in his favour under Section - 5A of the Act. In view of the same, the rights accrued to the decree holder by virtue of order dated 21.02.1985 in the E.P. remained intact and, therefore, he is entitled for execution of a register sale deed. iii) The CCCA No.190 of 1972 was decreed in terms of compromise on 20.07.1976 in respect of Acs.20.39 guntas in Survey Nos.130, 131 and 129 on the eastern side as against his claim for Acs.82.29 guntas. iv) Thereafter, the decree holder was constrained to file E.P. No.58 of 1984 seeking to execute the compromise decree dated 20.07.1976 in CCCA No.190 of 1972 as the judgment debtors committed breach of terms of compromise. The said E.P. No.58 of 1984 was also ended in compromise and accordingly the same was ordered on 21.02.1985 in terms of compromise in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.12.00 guntas in Survey Nos.128, 130 and 131 of Kandlakoya Village as against the claim of Acs.20.39 guntas. v) In terms of the said compromise in E.P.No.58 of 1984, the judgment debtors delivered physical vacant possession of the land to an extent of Acs.12.00 guntas and that they agreed to execute and register sale deed in favour of decree holder at his costs. In case of failure to execute the same, it was agreed that the decree holder is at liberty to get the same executed through the Court of law. vi) Since the date of delivery of vacant possession of the said land, the decree holder has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property. Pattadar Passbook and title deeds were issued in his name and pahanies also reflects his name as pattadar and possessor of the land. vii) Since the judgment debtors failed to execute and register sale deed, he sought to reopen the E.P. No.58 of 1984 and consequently to execute and register a sale deed for the said extent. 11. Pattadar Passbook and title deeds were issued in his name and pahanies also reflects his name as pattadar and possessor of the land. vii) Since the judgment debtors failed to execute and register sale deed, he sought to reopen the E.P. No.58 of 1984 and consequently to execute and register a sale deed for the said extent. 11. The petitioners herein - judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 filed counter opposing the relief contending as follows: i) The petitioners herein admitted about the compromise arrived at in E.P. No.58 of 1984 in respect of land admeasuring Acs.12.00 guntas in Survey Nos.128, 130 and 131 as against the claim of Acs.20.39 guntas in compromise recorded in CCCA No.190 of 1972. ii) They never delivered the physical vacant possession of the subject land to the decree holder. On the other hand, they have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. iii) As per the terms of compromise, it was for the decree holder to get the sale deed executed in his favour in respect of Acs.12.00 guntas in the said survey numbers by bearing the cost of registration thereof. The decree holder is interested in avoiding payment of stamp duty and registration charges so as to cause financial loss to the Government. iv) Had the decree holder obtained sale deed in respect of the land admeasuring Acs.12.00 guntas, substantial land in the said survey numbers could have been saved to the judgment debtors in the Land Ceiling Proceedings as neither the decree holder nor their father have shown the said lands in the ceiling declarations filed by them. On account of said inaction on the part of the decree holder, substantial lands in Survey Nos.134 to 137 and Part of Survey Nos.126 and 129 and also in Mangapur Village and Mucharla Village, Narsapur Taluq, Medak District was declared as excess and they had to surrender the same. v) The E.P. was filed after the prescribed period of limitation of 12 years after passing of the compromise decree. Therefore, the said E.P. is barred by limitation as per Article - 136 of the Limitation Act. 12. v) The E.P. was filed after the prescribed period of limitation of 12 years after passing of the compromise decree. Therefore, the said E.P. is barred by limitation as per Article - 136 of the Limitation Act. 12. Vide order dated 22.09.2025, the learned Executing Court allowed the said E.A. No.744 of 2025 holding thus: i) Though the judgment debtors contended that the decree holder already sold out the property in 2002 vide registered sale deed in favour of E-max Tech Systems Private Limited, they cannot insist the Court to execute the sale deed as the decree holder stopped by record, the Apex Court upheld the compromise decree vide order dated 10.10.2022 in SLP No.16695-16695/22, dated 10.10.2022. ii) Since the sale deeds were held to be illegal and void, the doctrine of lis pendence applies as envisaged under Section - 51 of the Transfer of Property act and rights and liabilities of the parties are subject to outcome of the pending litigation. iii) Therefore, the alleged alienation in the year 2002 held to be void and, therefore, the rights of the parties are unaffected and unshakable. Therefore, the decree holder was not having salable interest at the time of such transaction for which the Court cannot transfer the same to his vendee. Thus, the judgment debtors remained bound to execute and register sale deed for Acs.12.00 guntas or at least for the available land of Acs.10.17 guntas and deficit to be addressed in E.A. No.254 of 2023. iv) Thus, the trial Court held that the decree holder is entitled to obtain register sale deed in his favour for Survey No.128 admeasuring Acs.3.00 guntas; Survey No.130 admeasuring Acs.05.16 guntas after deducting NH-44 and ORR acquisition. In Survey No.131, ACs.02.01 guntas excluding the sub-station totally Acs.10.17 guntas. Liberty was also granted to the decree holder to pursue E.A. No.254 of 2023 for deficit. 13. Challenging the said order dated 22.09.2025, the petitioners - judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 filed C.R.P. No.4177 of 2025. 14. In Survey No.131, ACs.02.01 guntas excluding the sub-station totally Acs.10.17 guntas. Liberty was also granted to the decree holder to pursue E.A. No.254 of 2023 for deficit. 13. Challenging the said order dated 22.09.2025, the petitioners - judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 filed C.R.P. No.4177 of 2025. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed supra, suit in O.S. No.389 of 1969 was filed by the decree holder against deceased judgment debtor No.1 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.09.1969 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.82.29 guntas in Survey Nos.131, 130, 129, 138, 127 and 126, situated at Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal and the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.1971. Challenging the same, the decree-holder filed a first appeal in C.C.C.A. No.190 of 1972 before this Court, wherein the decree holder and the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor No.1 entered into compromise. Pursuant to the said compromise, the said CCCA 190 of 1972 was decreed on 20.07.1976 for an extent of Acs.20.30 guntas in Survey Nos.130, 131 and 129 on eastern side situated at Kandlakoya Village, as against the total extent of Acs.82.29 guntas. Pursuant to the said compromise decree, the decree holder filed an execution petition vide E.P.No.58 of 1984 for execution and registration of sale deed. In the said E.P. also, another compromise was entered by both the parties for an extent of Acs.12.00 guntas in Survey Nos.131, 130 and 129 of Kandlakoya Village as against the said extent of Acs.20.30 guntas. Pursuant to the said compromise, the said E.P. was closed. Pursuant to the compromise in E.P. No.58 of 1984, the decree holder got validated the land to an extent of Acs.12.00 guntas in his favour by invoking the procedure contemplated under Section - 5 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act 1971 vide file No.C/7/92 dated 30.06.1992 by the Mandal Revenue Officer. However, the same was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 07.02.2005 in W.A No.1812 of 2001. The said order had attained finality in view of the dismissal of SLP No.10907 of 2005 by the Apex Court on 13.10.2015. Thereafter, the decree holder pursued the proceedings by way of present E.P. by filing an application vide E.A. No.745 of 2015 for reopening the said E.P. No.58 of 1984. The said order had attained finality in view of the dismissal of SLP No.10907 of 2005 by the Apex Court on 13.10.2015. Thereafter, the decree holder pursued the proceedings by way of present E.P. by filing an application vide E.A. No.745 of 2015 for reopening the said E.P. No.58 of 1984. 15. However, the main contention of judgment debtor Nos.2 and 3 is that the decree holder has to obtain sale deed within one (01) month to an extent of Acs.9.00 guntas i.e., Acs.6.00 guntas in Survey No.130 and Acs.2.37 guntas in Survey No.131, whereas the E.P. was filed after 31 years and, therefore, the same is barred by limitation. Whereas, it is contended by the decree-holder that proceedings were pending from the Executing Court till the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the same were concluded in the year 2015. Immediately, the decree holder pursued the E.P. proceedings for execution of compromise decree dated 21.02.1985 in CCCA No.190 of 1972. 16. In the orders under challenge the learned Executing Court held that originally the decree-holder filed a suit in O.S. No.389 of 1969 against deceased judgment debtor No.1 for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 07.09.1969 in respect of the land to an extent of Acs.82.29 guntas in Survey Nos.131, 130, 129, 138, 127 and 126, situated at Kandlakoya Village, Medchal Mandal. The said suit was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.09.1971. Challenging the same, the decree-holder filed an appeal in C.C.C.A. No.190 of 1972 before this Court. In the said appeal, the decree holder and the legal heirs of the deceased judgment debtor No.1 entered into compromise. Pursuant to the said compromise, the said CCCA 190 of 1972 was decreed on 20.07.1976 for an extent of Acs.20.30 guntas in Survey Nos.130, 131 and 129 on eastern side situated at Kandlakoya Village, as against the total extent of Acs.82.29 guntas. 17. It was also observed by learned Executing Court that pursuant to the said compromise decree, the decree holder filed an execution petition vide E.P.No.58 of 1984 to execute and register a sale deed. Thereafter, another compromise was entered by both the parties for an extent of Acs.12.00 guntas in Survey Nos.131, 130 and 129 of Kandlakoya Village as against the said extent of Acs.20.30 guntas. Pursuant to the said compromise, the said E.P. was closed. Thereafter, another compromise was entered by both the parties for an extent of Acs.12.00 guntas in Survey Nos.131, 130 and 129 of Kandlakoya Village as against the said extent of Acs.20.30 guntas. Pursuant to the said compromise, the said E.P. was closed. As per the terms of the said compromise, if the judgment debtors fail to execute and register sale deed, the decree holder is at liberty to get the same executed through the Court. 18. While the things stood thus, pursuant to the compromise decree dated 21.02.1985 in E.P. No.58 of 1984, the decree holder got validated the land to an extent of Acs.12.00 guntas in his favour by invoking the procedure contemplated under Section - 5 (A) of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act 1971 vide file No.C/7/92 dated 30.06.1992 by the Mandal Revenue Officer. Challenging the said order, the judgment debtors filed appeal before Revenue Divisional Officer, Rangareddy District under Section - 5 of the said Act vide C/580/1993, and the same was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtors filed a revision before the Joint Collector vide file No.D5/8397/1994 who in turn dismissed the said revision by order dated 04.12.2000. 19. Challenging the said order, the judgment debtors filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3300 of 2001 before this Court and the said writ petition was dismissed on 15.10.2001. As against the said order, the judgment debtors filed writ appeal vide W.A No.1812 of 2001, and the same was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 07.02.2005 setting aside the order of learned Single Judge and the previous orders passed by Quasi-Judicial Authorities. The Division Bench also observed that compromise decree could not have been validated by Revenue Authorities and that the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in the Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971. Challenging the said order of Division Bench, the decree holder filed SLP No.10907 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court on 13.10.2015. 20. The Division Bench also observed that compromise decree could not have been validated by Revenue Authorities and that the provisions of Andhra Pradesh Rights in the Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971. Challenging the said order of Division Bench, the decree holder filed SLP No.10907 of 2005 and the same was dismissed by the Apex Court on 13.10.2015. 20. The learned Executing Court further held that as per the contents of the affidavit filed in support of petition since the decree holder delivered physical possession of the land to an extent Acs.12.00 guntas in Survey Nos.128, 130 and 131 of Kandlakoya Village as per the terms of compromise entered in E.P. No.58 of 1984 and since then the decree holder has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the land. In view of the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No.1812 of 2001, the decree holder was compelled to file E.A. No.744 of 2015 to obtain regular sale deed in terms of compromise entered and recorded on 21.02.1985 in E.P. No 58 of 1984. 21. During the pendency of the E.P. proceedings, an advocate commissioner was appointed in E.A. No.160 of 2023 in E.P. No.58 of 1984 to find out the exact extent of E.P. schedule property and to note down physical features of E.P. schedule property with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor. On execution of the warrant, he has filed a report on 12.10.2023. As per the said report, only an extent of Acs.10.17 guntas of land was available as Acs.01.23 guntas of land was acquired by the Government for expansion of National Highway No.44, Outer Ring Road and Sub-station. 22. It is also apt to note that there is no challenge to the appointment of Advocate Commissioner as well as his report by the petitioners herein. 23. The proceedings initiated by the decree holder under passbook under Section 5A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971 were set aside by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 07.02.2005. As against the same, the SLP No.10907 of 2005 filed by the decree holder was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2015. Therefore, the decree holder having lost proceedings initiated under passbook under Section - 5A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971, proceeded with the alternative remedy of reopening the aforesaid E.P. No.58 of 1984. As against the same, the SLP No.10907 of 2005 filed by the decree holder was dismissed vide order dated 13.10.2015. Therefore, the decree holder having lost proceedings initiated under passbook under Section - 5A of the A.P. Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbook Act, 1971, proceeded with the alternative remedy of reopening the aforesaid E.P. No.58 of 1984. Accordingly, the decree holder filed E.A. No.744 of 2015 under Order - XXI, Rule - 32 (5) of CPC to execute and register sale deed in his favour in respect of petition schedule property as per terms of compromise decree/order dated 21.02.1985 passed in the said E.P. and another E.A. No.745 of 2025 in the said E.P. to reopen the said E.P. for the purpose of passing appropriate orders for execution of sale deed . The said petitions were dismissed on 22.10.2018. As against the said orders, the decree holder preferred C.R.P. Nos.329 and 350 of 2019, and the same were allowed vide orders dated 02.08.2022 and 03.08.2022. As against the said orders dated 02.08.2022 and 03.08.2022, the petitioners herein filed SLP Nos.16694-16695 of 2022 and the same were dismissed vide order dated 10.10.2022. Thus, the said E.A. Nos.744 and 745 of 2025 stood allowed. Strangely, again the learned Executing Court passed order dated 22.09.2025 in E.A. No.744 of 2015 which is challenged vide C.R.P. No.4177 of 2025 by the petitioner herein. There is no explanation from both sides as to what made the learned Executing Court to pass orders in E.A. No.744 of 2015 again when the said E.A. was allowed vide order dated 02.08.2022 in C.R.P. No.329 of 2019. Even there is no reference with regard to the same in the order dated 22.09.2025 by the learned Executing Court. 24. Be that as it may, while allowing the revisions in C.R.P. Nos.329 and 350 of 2019, this Court considered the purport of Section - 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 by observing thus: “It was also argued that under Section 14 of the Limitation Act means only Civil Court, but the petitioner herein pursued the matter with Revenue Authorities and it will not fall within the ambit of Court. But, civil proceedings prosecuted in any other Forum including the Revenue Authorities, will come under the meaning of the Court. Section 14 of the Limitation Act includes quasi judicial Tribunals…” 25. But, civil proceedings prosecuted in any other Forum including the Revenue Authorities, will come under the meaning of the Court. Section 14 of the Limitation Act includes quasi judicial Tribunals…” 25. In view of the above observations in the aforesaid CRPs, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that the E.P. is barred by limitation is unsustainable. 26. Learned Executing Court considered all the said aspects while passing the impugned orders. They are reasoned and well founded orders. 27. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioners have not made out any ground to interfere with the orders under revisions. The same do not require any interference by this Court. 28. All these revisions are accordingly dismissed confirming the orders dated 22.09.2025 in E.P. No.43 of 2024 (Old E.P. No.58 of 1984 in O.S. No.389 of 1969); dated 22.09.2025 in E.A. No.254 of 2023 and dated 22.09.2025 in E.A. No.744 of 2015 passed by learned Additional Senior Civil Judge, Medchal - Malkajgiri District at Medchal. In the circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the revision shall stand closed.