HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2407 OF 2008 DATE:21-01-2011 BETWEEN Matangi Sasirekhamma …Petitioner AND B.Rajarathnam & Others …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2407 OF 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the orders of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, dated 17.3.2008 made in E.A.No.672 of 2006 in E.A.No.1063 of 2003 in E.P.No.276 of 2002 in O.S.No.1799 of 1979, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-decree holder for appointment of Advocate- commissioner to note down the physical features and take measurements of the entire decree schedule property with the help of Town Surveyor and to note down the unauthorized structures in the property was dismissed. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein having obtained decree in O.S.No.1799 of 1979 filed the above E.P. and as per the orders of the Court, the Amin delivered the E.P. schedule property with the help of police-aid to the petitioner on 5.4.2003 and submitted a report which contained the thumb impression of the petitioner and witnesses, which was marked as Ex.C.1. On examining the Amin, the Court recorded the delivery of property as per Ex.C.1 and closed the E.P. On closure of the E.P., the petitioner herein filed E.A.No.1063 of 2003 under Order 21 Rule 97 C.P.C. stating that the Amin delivered E.P. schedule vacant possession, but only handed over part of the schedule property as a vacant site, that he delivered possession of the schedule property consisting of about 130 sq.yds. and the respondents 1 to 6 made temporary constructions in the remaining site of 126 sq.yds. and that they are not removing the unauthorized construction and therefore, he sought for re-entrusting the delivery warrant to Amin for the purpose of demolishing the unauthorized structures. Pending the said E.A., the petitioner filed the present E.A. for appointment of Commissioner to undertake the verification. Once the procedure as contemplated under Order 21 Rule 35 C.P.C. was completed as early as on 16.4.2003 and the petitioner-decree holder having agreed the delivery of possession, he cannot agitate the same and seek for appointment of Commissioner to measure the decree schedule property. The petitioner’s remedy, if any, is to file a suit for declaration with regard to the property covered by the earlier decree, but not by way of an application. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order passed by the lower Court warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JANUARY 21, 2011 Tsr.