THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5020 OF 2006 ORDER: Heard Sri M.V.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A.Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the respondent No.1. The petitioner-appellant filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order dated 10.07.2006 in E.A.No.97 of 2005 in E.P.No.113 of 1997 in O.S.No.284 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, in giving two options to the decree holder to receive the decretal amount with subsequent interest and costs and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- to the claim petitioner towards improvements in the petition schedule property within three months from the date of that order. The facts, in brief, which are necessary for disposal of this revision, are that the petitioner claims to have purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 06.10.1997, which is marked as Ex.A1, from the judgment debtor for a sum of Rs.95,000/-. Even though the decree has been obtained in pursuance of recovery of money dated in O.S.No.284 of 1993, there has been attachment of the said property by the Court below on 07.08.1997 in pursuance of the said decree. However, the petitioner is not aware of the said attachment nor the judgment debtor disclosed the same before the sales. The case of the petitioner is that subsequent to the purchase, he has obtained loan from State Bank of India and constructed a house. The said property is being assessed under the property tax and the taxes have been paid. Mean while, the decree holder also seems to have made a purchase of the very same property on 15.11.2002 in pursuance of Court auction being highest bidder for an amount of Rs.66,000/-. The dispute arises since the execution was sought to be proceeded. After filing of the application by the petitioner in E.A.no.1446 of 2002, during the course of enquiry, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and got marked Ex.A1 to A9. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined but no document was marked. On considering the evidence available on record, the Court below allowed the application on the ground that the petitioner is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- towards cost of construction, which has been made and opined that since the said purchase is during subsistence of attachment, the same would not be valid. Hence, the revision. Having heard the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, it is seen that the present application filed by the petitioner in the Court below is only in pursuance of a common order passed by this Court dated 21.11.2004 in C.M.P.Nos.15885 and 15959 of 2004 in C.R.P.Nos.2683 and 2874 of 2003, wherein this Court dismissed both the applications and observed as under. “However, it shall be open for the petitioner herein to file appropriate application in the very same proceedings seeking damages and compensation towards improvements made and the same can be disposed of on merits in accordance of law after giving notice to both sides.” It is only for the short purpose; the present application has been filed for determination of quantum of damages for which the petitioner is entitled to. On the entire appraisal of the material, it is seen that except examining himself as P.W.1, there is no other oral evidence in support of the petitioner’s case in regard to consideration or compensation to which he would be entitled to. Even among the documents filed on his behalf, Exs.A1 to A9, except Ex.A7-Valuation Report, all other documents do not assist the petitioner’s case. Even in regard to Ex.A7, which is stated to be Valuation Report dated 26.01.2005, the petitioner has not examined the author of the said document, who submitted the said valuation. Unless the said document is proved with an opportunity to the other side, the said document cannot be accepted. Even though the petitioner has been canvassing for the quantum of damages, prima facie, I am of the view that there is no acceptable oral evidence in support and therefore, the Court below could not fix any compensation at all. Though the learned counsel for the respondents herein submitted that the Court below specified the quantum at Rs.1,00,000/-, this Court is not prepared to accept the same for want of sufficient evidence on either side in regard to cost of construction and the damages to which the petitioner is entitled. It is felt desirable that the matter requires fresh enquiry. In the circumstances, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 10.07.2006 in E.A.No.97 of 2005 in E.P.No.113 of 1997 in O.S.No.284 of 1993 on the file of the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Court below only to decide on the question in respect of determination of damages and compensation for the construction made by the petitioner. The Court below shall dispose of the same within a period of three {3} months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 21st January 2011 RRB