THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY Civil Revision Petition Nos.393 & 488 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: 1 In both the revision petitions parties are common and as such these two revision petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 2 First respondent herein has filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.41 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the V Additional District Judge (II FTC) Warangal against the second respondent herein. The suit schedule property is about 680 Sq. Yards covered by Sy.No.542/A and B and 549/A and B situated at Wadepally villge, Hanamkonda, Warangal District. It is stated that the said suit was decreed ex parte. To execute the same the first respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.130 of 2006. 3 In the execution proceedings, the petitioner herein who is a third party, filed a claim petition in E.A.No.9 of 2010. When that E.A.No.9 of 2010 is pending consideration, the second respondent herein has filed E.A.No.10 of 2010 under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice requesting the Court to permit the husband of the petitioner by name by name Gottam Sampathy Kumar Reddy, to represent her in the case as GPA holder. She also filed E.A.No.11 of 2010 under Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 C.P.C. praying the court to appoint an advocate commissioner to ascertain and locate whether the E.P. schedule property and its boundaries available in Sy.Nos.542/A & B and 549/A & B or in Sy.No.541. 4 In these two revision petitions, Sri A. Prabhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that both the applications filed by the petitioner i.e. E.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2010 are erroneously rejected. It is submitted that the first respondent, though filed the suit in O.S.No.41 of 2005 against the second respondent for specific performance with regard to the suit schedule property covered by Sy.Nos.542/A & B and 549/A & B admeasuring to an extent of 680 Sq. Yards situated at Wadepally villge, Hanamkonda, Warangal District, but the boundaries of the property belonging to the revision petitioner were shown, without impleading the revision petitioner as a party to the said proceedings and as such appointment of an advocate commissioner is necessary so as to locate and demarcate the survey numbers of the suit schedule property and the land of the petitioner which is covered by Sy.No.541. It is also submitted that the court below without assigning any valid reasons, has rejected the E.A.No.10 of 2010 by going into the merits of the case. 5 On the other hand the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the E.P. is filed only to execute the decree of specific performance against the second respondent and there are no merits in the claim petition filed by the revision petitioner. It is further submitted that having filed a claim petition, it is for the petitioner to lead evidence in the claim petition. But at this stage, there are no grounds to seek for appointment of an advocate commissioner. 6 I have heard the learned counsel on either side and also perused the orders passed in E.A.Nos.10 and 11 of 2010. I so far as E.A.No.10 of 2010 is concerned, the said petition is filed under Rule 32 of Civil Rules of Practice to permit the husband of the petitioner, being a General Power of Attorney Holder, to represent the petitioner in the case on her behalf. Though the scope of the application is very limited, the court below, by going into the merits of the matter that the husband of the petitioner cannot be a witness in the place of the petitioner, dismissed the said application. Whether the petitioner will appear as a witness or her GPA holder will appear as a witness is a matter, which will come up after allowing the application. But the same is not a ground to reject the application at this stage. Hence that petition deserved to be allowed. 7 At the same time, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Court below in E.A.No.11 of 2010. If the first respondent is trying to execute the decree with regard to the land of the petitioner, who is not a party to the suit, the petitioner as well can lead evidence in E.A.No.9 of 2010, but cannot seek appointment of an advocate commissioner to gather evidence. Hence, in view of the finding recorded by the court below I do not find any illegality warranting interference from this court in CRP No.393 of 2011. 8 For the aforesaid reasons, CRP No.488 of 2011 is allowed, consequently E.A.No.10 of 2010 stands allowed and CRP No.393 of 2010 is dismissed confirming the order passed by the court below in E.A.No.11 of 2010. It is made clear that with regard to the claim of the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to lead evidence in the claim petition which is pending in E.A.No.9 of 2010. No order as to costs. ------------------------------- R.Subhash Reddy, J. 24.10.2011 Kvsn