ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 5 of 1972 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Tanuku for declaration of his title to Ac. 0-50 of land in Survey No. 203/1 of Rapaka village within the boundaries mentioned in the A schedule appended to the plaint and for other reliefs. By the decree and judgment dated 08-08-1975 the learned Subordinate Judge while declaring the title of the revision petitioner to the plaint A schedule property of Ac. 0-50 ordered delivery of possession of the property from the defendants in the suit and dismissed the suit relating to the relief of recovery of possession of property in respect of plaint B and C schedules. That decree was modified in A.S. No. 39 of 1977 filed by the defendants in the suit holding that the revision petitioner's title to the plaint A schedule is subject to the life estate of the fifth defendant in the suit and that he is entitled to recovery of possession of the said property only after the death of the fifth defendant, and dismissed the cross-objections preferred by the revision petitioner.
2. After the death of the fifth defendant, revision petitioner filed E.P. No. 90 of 1994 for recovery of possession of the property wherein respondent filed E.A. 60 of 1995 contending that inasmuch as he is in possession of the plaint A schedule property as a tenant of the deceased fifth defendant since 1975 on an agreed rent of 12 bags of paddy payable by 31st December each year, he cannot be evicted and only symbolic delivery can be given to the revision petitioner. By the order dated 24-08-2000, the learned Subordinate Judge allowed that petition and held that the revision petitioner is entitled only to symbolic delivery and the rents from the date of death of Bala Tripura Sundaramma i.e. the fifth defendant. Appeal preferred by the revision petitioner against the said order dated 24-08-2000 in E.A. No. 60 of 1995 was dismissed on 18-10-2001.
3. Subsequently, revision petitioner filed E.P. No. 45 of 2003 for recovery of rents at the rate of 12 bags of paddy due and payable from 31 -12-1994 i.e. subsequent to the death of the fifth defendant to 31-12-2000, by attaching the properties of the respondent. Respondent filed a counter contending that the E.P. is not maintainable. Accepting the contention of the respondent, the executing Court dismissed the E.P. by the order under revision. Hence this revision.
4. The main contention of Sri O. Manohar Reddy, learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, is that since the order in E.A. No. 60 of 1995, filed by the respondent himself, clearly directs the respondent to pay rents from the date of death of Bala Tripura Sundaramma i.e. fifth defendant, to the revision petitioner, that order in view of Section 36 CPC, should be deemed to be a decree for all practical purposes, and since an E.A. in E.P. is akin to an I.A. in the suit, the order passed in E.A can be executed as if it were a decree, and so the executing Court was in error in dismissing the E.P for recovery of amount payable by the respondent to the revision petitioner. He relied on M.V.S. Manikyala Rao v. M. Narasimhaswami and Ors. : [1966]1SCR628 in support of his contention that in view of Section 36 CPC, provisions relating to execution of decrees apply to execution of orders also. The contention of Sri I. Ramakrishna Rao, learned Counsel for the respondent, is that since E.A. 60 of 1995 was filed only to oppose physical delivery of property which is in possession of the tenant as a lessee of the deceased fifth defendant, to the revision petitioner, the point for consideration in that petition was whether the decree holder is entitled to physical possession of property or not, and so merely because the executing Court ordered that the respondent should pay rents to the revision petitioner from the date of death of Bala Tripura Sundaramma that observation perse does not amount to a decree, and since the revision petitioner did not obtain any decree against the respondent for recovery of rents, the executing Court rightly held that the E.P. is not maintainable. He relied on K.M.Krishnaiah v. Tirumala Tirupathi Devasthanam : 1997(5)ALT258 . In reply, the contention of learned Counsel for the revision petitioner is that irrespective of the question whether a life estate holder can create tenancy to bind the vested remainder holder or not, since the order dated 24-08-2000 directed the respondent to pay rents to the revision petitioner from the date of death of Bala Tripura Sundaramma, that order is binding on the respondent and so that order can be executed by the revision petitioner.
5. I find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner, it is not necessary for me to go into the question whether the life estate holder, can, by granting a lease of the property, bind that lease on the vested remainder holder or not. The only point for consideration in this revision is whether the order dated 24-08-2000 in E.A. 60 of 1995 can be executed by the revision petitioner or not.
6. K.M. Krishnaiah case : 1997(5)ALT258 relied on by the learned Counsel for the respondent has no application to the facts of this case. In that case, the question was regarding maintainability of the appeal on an order passed in an interlocutory proceeding. The facts in that case are in an appeal preferred to it, the apex Court ordered stay of execution on condition of appellant depositing into Court the mesne profits to be determined by the trial Court as a condition precedent for stay of execution of recovery of possession. Accordingly, the trial Court, on a petition filed by the decree holder, determined the mesne profits. The judgment debtor preferred an appeal to High Court against the order determining mesne profits. The learned Judge held that the order determining mesne profits is not a decree enabling the judgment debtor to question it in an appeal. Question whether an order passed in an interlocutory proceeding is executable or not was not, considered in that decision.
7. As per Section 36 CPC interlocutory orders can be executed like decrees. In EA No. 60 of 1995 filed by him, respondent admitted that he has to pay 12 bags of paddy by 31st December each year as rent. The executing Court in E.A. 60 of 1995 directed the respondent to pay the rents from the date of death of Bala Tripura Sundaramma to the revision petitioner. So, respondent cannot be heard to say that he is not bound by the said order, more so because an appeal against that order was dismissed.
8. Since it is not the case of the respondent that he paid the rent to the revision petitioner after the death of Bala Tripura Sundaramma the said order can be executed by the revision petitioner in view of Section 36 CPC. In view thereof, I am of the considered opinion that the executing Court was in error in dismissing the E.P.
9. Therefore, the revision petition is allowed, the order under revision is set aside and the executing Court is directed to order further steps in the E.P. and dispose it of according to law. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this revision.