ORDER : Narsing Rao Nandikonda, J. This Civil Revision Petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Revision Petition, 1908 (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) is filed aggrieved by the Docket order, dated 23.03.2017, in E.A (SR) No.1745 of 2015 in E.P.No.101 of 2012 passed by the learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby the claim petitioners-3rd party filed claim petition seeking to allow the claim petition by making necessary changes in the proceedings and delete the land of the claim petitioners from the decree as well as warrant of bailiff with necessary orders and rejected by impugned order, dated 23.03.2017. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claim petition was filed under Order XXI Rule 99 read with Section 151 of C.P.C raising objections as to the delivery of the possession of the property situated at northern portion of house bearing Municipal No.1-9-515 to 518, consisting of shed, hall with Asbestos sheets roof, admeasuring 254 square yards of 212.34 square meters, situated at Adikmet, Musheerabad, Hyderabad, bounded by: Direction Details North H.No.1-9-523 to 527 belongs to Rana Prathap South Part of H.No.1-9-515 to 518 East H.No.1-9-514 belongs to Eshwaramma West Road 20’ wide having acquired the same by virtue of Gift deed, dated 05.12.1973 and subsequently executed registered Gift Settlement Deed, dated 06.07.2010 by late Chintala Ramchander i.e., Judgment Debtor No.2 in favour of the petitioners herein by handing over physical possession in the year 1973 itself. It is stated that the petitioners came to the knowledge of the same recently in the month of December, 2014 and approached the Court by filing Claim Petition and then they came to know about filing of E.P.No.101 of 2012 in O.S.No.787 of 1985 by Late P.Venkateswara Rao, for execution of decree and judgment in O.S.No.787 of 1985, dated 13.02.2009 passed by the learned trial Court against the Judgment debtors/respondent Nos.1 and 2 recently in the month of December, 2014. 3. It is further stated that on 21.04.2015 the respondents visited the suit schedule property with some third parties and taking hectic efforts to alienate the same in their favour. In the said circumstances, the petitioners approached the trial Court seeking to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property, otherwise they will be put to irreparable loss. In the said circumstances, the petitioners approached the trial Court seeking to grant ad-interim injunction restraining the respondents from alienating the suit schedule property, otherwise they will be put to irreparable loss. The learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad vide order, dated 22.03.2017 passed the docket order. Operative portion of the said order reads as follows: “On careful perusal of the entire material available on record, admittedly the present petition is filed by the petitioner on 23.04.2015, it shows that the petition filed by the petitioners after lapse of more than 2 years from the date of dispossession. Therefore, this petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable and barred by limitation. It is well settled law that if the third party who is other than judgment debtor dispossession in execution of decree not barred by filing a separate suit. Therefore, from the above foregoing discussion this Court comes to the firm opinion that office/Registry of this Court raised a correct objection for maintainability of the petition, as such petition is rejected.” 4. Challenging the same, the, present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-claim petitioners stating that the petitioners are staying far away from the E.P schedule property since 1997 till December, 2014; that the Judgment Debtor including the Decree Holders are not informed the same to the petitioners, therefore, the question of limitation does not arise and petition filed by the petitioners is well within limitation; that the finding of the learned trial Court is erroneous in view of the fact that the petitioners filed claim petition within 30 days as envisaged under Order XXI Rule 99 of C.P.C from the date of knowledge, as such the learned trial Court ought not to have come to a conclusion that the petition is barred by limitation that too without passing reasonable order; that the learned trial court miserably failed to appreciate the contentions of the petitioners having interest in the property involved in execution can object by filing petition under Order XXI Rule 99 CPC as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 1994 (1) SCC 1 that the person is entitled to file petition after dispossession irrespective of filing a separate suit for declaration and recovery of possession also irrespective of filing a separate suit for declaration and recovery of possession. But, in the instant case, the learned trial Court miserably failed to follow the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court and erroneously concluded the objection raised by the Registry is sustainable. 5. Heard Mohd.Iqad Begum, representing M/s. V.Bhahmaiah Chowdary, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V.Murali Manohar, learned counsel representing V.Dyumani , learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners submits that petitioners-claim petitioners are absolute owners and possessors of aforesaid property having acquired the same by virtue of Gift Deed, dated 05.12.1973; that in the month of December, 2014, the petitioners are out of station when the Court bailiff came for execution of the orders, dated 13.07.2012 and executed warrant on 09.08.2012 with the assistant of the police protection; that in spite of bringing notice to the bailiff by the family members of the petitioners that they are owners and possessors of the subject property, without seeing the documents, i.e., petitioners’ title deed, executed the warrant in respect of the property covered by gift deed and subsequent gift settlement deed, dated 05.12.1973 and 06.07.2010 by conducting panchanama, wherein given warrant by the Court is in respect H.No.1-9-523 to 527, Adikmet, Hyderabad, but the bailiff at the instance of the decree holders executed warrant on petitioners property i.e., H.No.1-9-515 to 518, Adikmet, Hyderabad and handed over the petitioners’ property to the Decree Holders which is absolutely belongs to the petitioners and boundaries are different from the order granted by learned trial Court in E.P.No.101 of 2012, dated 13.07.2012. 7. He further submits that on earlier occasion the so-called late P.Venkateshwar Rao has filed suit in O.S.No.510 of 1975 for Specific Performance of an Agreement of Sale in respect of another immovable property bearing H.No.1-9-515 to 518 admeasuring in an area of 520 square yards, situated at Adikmet, Hyderabad and obtained an ex parte injunction vide I.A.No.1093 of 1975 and the sais I.A. was dismissed on 14.08.1978 after contest, the said order became final as no appeal has been preferred by the so-called Venkateswara Rao. He further submits that the petitioners-claim petitioners are now on the streets. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned docket order, otherwise they will be put to serious irreparable loss and hardship. 8. He further submits that the petitioners-claim petitioners are now on the streets. Hence, prayed to set aside the impugned docket order, otherwise they will be put to serious irreparable loss and hardship. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that late Venkateshwara Rao filed a suit in O.S.No.787 of 1985 on the file of learned IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad for declaration and possession against the Judgment Debtors. The said suit was decreed on 12.09.1994. Aggrieved by the same, Judgment Debtors 1 and 2 filed appeal in A.S.No.290 of 1994 and the same was dismissed on 21.01.2010. There is no dispute that the respondents filed E.P.No.101 of 2012 under Order XXI Rule 35 of C.P.C. and the Court Bailiff executed warrant and thereby delivered the possession under Order XXI Rule 35 of C.P.C. by duly executing and handing over the vacant possession of EP schedule property to the decree holders under panchanama, dated 09.08.2012 and the decree holders also passed receipt in token of receiving vacant possession of the schedule property and E.P. proceedings were terminated by learned trial Court on 09.10.2012. He further submits that the learned trial Court after considering same rightly rejected the application and there are no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. This Court perused the entire facts and circumstances of the case. As seen from the record, the Court Bailiff came for execution of the Court order, dated 13.07.2012 and executed the warrant on 09.08.2012 with the assistant of police. The grievance of the petitioners is that they are the owners and possessors of the subject property covered by warrant and the bailiff without seeing documents i.e., petitioners title deed, executed the warrant in respect of property covered by Gift Deed and subsequent Registered Gift Settlement Deed, dated 05.12.1973 and 06.07.2010 by conducting panchanama wherein the warrant was given by the learned trial Court in respect of H.No.1-9-523 to 527, Adikmet, Hyderabad but the bailiff at the instance of the decree holders executed warrant on petitioners property i.e., H.No.1-9-515 to 518, Adikmet, Hyderabad and handed over the petitioners’ property to the Decree holders which property belongs to the claim petitioners and boundaries are different from the orders granted by learned trial Court in E.P.No.101 of 2012, dated 13.07.2012. 10. 10. There is no dispute that the application is filed under Order XXI Rule 99 of C.P.C. by the petitioners on 23.04.2015. On perusal of the Order XXI Rule 99 of C.P.C. which envisages remedy of a person who dispossessed from the immovable property by decree holder who appear before the Executing Court for complaining of dispossession by the decree holder or other than Judgment debtors. Further, it is settled law that recover of possession the party can file a petition under Order XXI Rule 99 of C.P.C. for redelivery of the possession and the said petition filed within 30 days from the date of dispossession. Article 128 of Limitation Act clearly envisages that the redelivery of the possession under Order XXI Rule 99 of C.P.C to be filed within 30 days from the date of dispossession. Article 128 of the Limitation Act is extracted below for reference: Article 128 of the Limitation Act, 1963, provides a limitation period of 30 days for an application by a person dispossessed of immovable property who disputes the right of a decree-holder or purchaser at a sale in execution of a decree. The limitation period begins from the date of dispossession. 11. Admittedly, in the present case, petitioners’ filed petition on 23.04.2015, which itself shows that petitioners filed petition after lapse of more than two years from the date of dispossession. Therefore, the petition filed by the petition is not maintainable and barred by limitation. Therefore, the learned trial Court after considering the entire material on record, rightly rejected the petition and this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the same. 12. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners’ property is distinct from the property attached in the Execution Petition. If there is any dispute relating to the identity of the property, the petitioners have appropriate remedies available to them before the competent forum by availing such remedies in accordance with law. Consequently, the petitioners cannot seek any relief under the present provision in the present Execution Petition. 13. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed with the above observation. There shall be no order as to costs.