THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.6036 of 2010 9th December, 2011 Between :- Kudumula Vekata Narayana Reddy .. Petitioner And A.Nagi Reddy and another .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.6036 of 2010 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 17-9-2010 passed in E.A.No.294 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur. The petitioner is the Judgment Debtor in E.P.No.211 of 2004. The property came to be auctioned for realization of the decretal debt. After confirmation of the sale, the petitioner – JDr. filed E.A.No.583 of 2009 under Order XXI Rule 90 C.P.C. to set aside the sale. He also moved E.A.No.294 of 2010 under order 26 Rule 9 of C.P.C. seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the application schedule property. The respondents filed counter resisting the application. Learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Proddatur, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 17-9-2010. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “The version of the petitioner is that he has filed a petition under Order XXI Rule 90 of C.P.C. to set aside the sale and the same is pending. No doubt, the application filed by the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 90 of C.P.C. in E.A.No.583 of 2009 is pending and posted for enquiry. The version of the petitioner is that the first respondent has not given the measurements of the schedule property in the E.P. or in the sale proclamation and also the value of the property has not correctly noted in the sale papers. The parties have to adduce oral and documentary evidence regarding the valuation mentioned by the D.Hr. in the E.P., sale papers etc., and also with regard to the measurements and physical features of the property including the survey numbers. The appointment of Commissioner to note down the physical features of the schedule property and also to ascertain the exact location of the schedule property is not required. The parties in E.A.No.583 of 2009 can adduce oral and documentary evidence with regard to these aspects. Hence, for the above reasons, I am of the considered opinion that there are no merits in this petition and the petitioner is not entitled for petition relief. This point is answered accordingly against the petitioner.” Notice to the respondents came to be ordered on 28-12-2010. Respondents entered appearance through a Counsel. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material brought on record. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is ambiguity with regard to the measurements given in the E.P. schedule and therefore Commissioner is required to be appointed to note down the physical features of the E.P. schedule property. A further submission has been made that the application seeking appointment of Commissioner in Execution Proceedings is maintainable. In support of her submission, reliance has been placed on the Judgment of this Court in VADLAMANI SURYANARAYANA MURTHY v. SARIPALLI BALAKAMESHWARI (2007 (2) ALT 636). There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law that an application seeking appointment of Commissioner is permissible in Execution Proceedings. The question is whether the petitioner has made out a valid ground for appointment of a Commissioner. It is a matter of record that the petitioner did not raise any objection when the property has been brought to sale. Indeed, the sale has been held in open Court on 5-6-2006 and the 2nd respondent became the highest bidder and sale in his favour came to be confirmed on 19-8-2006. Three years thereafter, the petitioner- J.Dr. filed E.A.No.583 of 2009 under Order XXI Rule 90 of C.P.C. to set aside the sale. The reason for appointment of the Commissioner is that the Decree-holder has not given the measurements of the property brought to sale and value of the property has not been correctly noted in the sale papers. These are all factual aspects which are required to be proved by the petitioner by adducing evidence. There is no need for appointment of Commissioner to note down the measurements of the property. The Trial Court considered the material brought on record in right perspective and proceeded to dismiss the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of Commissioner. There is no illegality, irregularity warranting interference of this Court in the order impugned in the revision in exercise of powers under Section 115 of C.P.C. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. Status quo granted on 28-12-2010 stands vacated. ________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 9th December, 2011 smr