GUDISEVA SHYAM PRASAD, J. - (1.) This Civil Revision Petition is preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by the docket order dated 27.02.2018 in E.P.No.10 of 2016 in O.S.No.206 of 2007 passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam.
(2.) The petitioner is Judgment Debtor No.2/Defendant No.2, respondent No.1 is the plaintiff/Decree holder, respondent No.2 is Judgment Debtor No.1/Defendant No.1 and respondent Nos.3 to 6 are Judgment Debtor Nos.3 to 6/defendant Nos.3 to 6 in the suit O.S.No.206 of 2007. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit O.S.No.206 of 2007.
(3.) The suit in O.S.No.206 of 2007 was filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and perpetual injunction and for a direction to defendant Nos.3 to 5 to cancel ROR Pass Book and title deeds issued to defendant No.1 and to delete the names of defendant Nos.1 and 2 and incorporate the name of the plaintiff in the Revenue records in respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2007. The appeal suit in A.S.No.106 of 2013 filed against the said judgment and decree dated 31.10.2013 in O.S.No.206 of 2007 by defendant Nos.1 and 2 was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 31.01.2014 in A.S.No.106 of 2013 passed by the I Additional District Judge, Khammam. Aggrieved by the same, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have preferred S.A.No.161 of 2014 before this Court along with an application in SAMP.No.416 of 2014 seeking stay of all further proceedings. In the said application in SAMP.No.416 of 2014 in S.A.No.161 of 2014, initially this Court granted status quo order and subsequently it was vacated vide order dated 25.09.2014. Challenging the said order dated 25.09.2014 in SAMP.No.416 of 2014 in S.A.No.161 of 2014, defendant Nos.1 and 2 have preferred SLP (Civil) No.28100 of 2014 before the Supreme Court and the same was dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2014. Thereafter, the plaintiff has filed Execution Petition in E.P.No.10 of 2016 in O.S.No.206 of 2007 seeking execution of the decree against the defendants. When E.P.No.10 of 2016 came up for enquiry, vide the impugned docket order dated 27.02.2018 the Executing Court noted the proceedings as under: "PW.1 is present and he is sworn in for the purpose of continuation of cross-examination. Cross-examination:- No representation for Government Pleader upto 03.19 p.m. J.Dr.No.3 to 5 called absent. Further cross-examination of PW.1 by Government Pleader for J.Dr.No.3 to 5 is closed. At this stage the counsel for J.Dr.No.2 represented that he may be permitted to cross-examine PW.1. The D.Hr. seeks relief against J.Drs.3 to 5 only. No relief is sought for against J.Dr.No.2. Though the counsel for J.Dr.2 filed Vakalat and counter I am of the view J.Dr.2 is all entitle to cross-examine PW.1. The relief sought for in the petition is as follows: Hence the D.Hr./Plaintiff prayed that the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to necessary to send the J.Drs/Defendants No.3 to 5 by detention in the civil prison and attachment of their property under Order 21 Rule 32 of Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908) 1908 in the interest of justice. By mere filing vakalat and counter the J.Dr.No.2 cannot get right of cross-examine this witness. As such the Court refused to permit the counsel for J.Dr.2 to cross-examine this witness." Aggrieved by the said docket order, the petitioner/defendant No.2 has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. ;