IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIRST DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2001 of 2010 Between: Varla Ramaiah .. Revision Petitioner AND M/s. Deepti Finance Kurnool .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2001 of 2010 ORDER: Heard Sri V. Hanumanth Rao, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri C. Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. The revision petitioner/judgment debtor filed E.A.No.2 of 2010 in E.P.No.24 of 2003 in O.S.No.58 of 1999, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to find out whether the respondent firm is functioning in the address given in the cause title of the execution petition contending that the said finance firm is not in existence and no office is functioning either at the given address or anywhere in Kurnool town. The request was for the Commissioner to find out the existence of the functioning of the firm at the last known address or anywhere else in Kurnool town. 3. The respondent/decree holder contested the request stating that such a plea was never raised earlier and the decree holder firm filed number of cases against number of debtors and recovered the amounts due successfully before the Civil Court. The request was stated to be to avoid payment of the decree debt. 4. The Executing Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the petition without costs mainly on the ground of the judgment debtor not raising such an objection earlier at any point of time. 5. The judgment debtor challenges the said order in this revision contending that the very objection about non-existence of the decree holder firm which was dissolved long back is the basis for the contest of the judgment debtor to establish which, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner alone is the way available to the judgment debtor. The person who filed the execution petition, therefore, had no authority to file the execution petition and the orders in C.R.P.No.1221 of 2008 have been ignored by the Executing Court. Hence, the impugned order is requested to be reversed. 6. The point for consideration is whether the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purposes claimed by the judgment debtor is required for an effective and comprehensive adjudication of the questions in issue between the parties in the execution petition. 7. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner had invited attention to the evidence of the first witness for the decree holder in the execution petition wherein it was admitted that the firm was closed in 2001 with the witness further adding that he did not completely close the firm but shifted it to his house for running the firm. This very statement by the witness for decree holder shows that the firm is not functioning at or from the address given in the decree or in the execution petition and, therefore, there would be no legitimate purpose in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to verify whether the firm is functioning from such an address. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed by the judgment debtors 2 and 3 in the execution petition in para 8 that the Registrar of Firms was informed about the closure of the firm through a notice on 21.02.2000 and that a petition for additional evidence in I.A.No.309 of 2002 in A.S.No.71 of 2001 for establishing the same was pending and that the attested copy of Form-A issued by the Registrar of Firms, Hyderabad, dated 02.03.2002, was being filed along with the counter affidavit. It is always open to the judgment debtors to establish such facts through such documentary evidence connected with the communications to or from the Registrar of Firms and any Advocate Commissioner cannot scan the entire Kurnool town for verifying and reporting to the Court whether any firm with the name of the decree holder is functioning anywhere in Kurnool. As such, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner does not appear to be called for under the circumstances, while it is open to both parties to establish their respective contentions before the Executing Court in any other manner permitted by law. 8. Subject to the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. In view of the pendency of the execution proceedings since long, the Executing Court shall make every endeavour to proceed further with the execution petition as expeditiously as possible. _______________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 21st July, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2001 of 2010 Date: 21st July, 2011 KL