IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTY THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND SIX : PRESENT : THE HON’BLE SRI.JUSTICE : P.S.NARAYANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.6700 of 2004 Petition under Section of 115 OF CPC to revise the Order dated 09.12.2004 made in EP No.1087 of 2002 in OS No.445 of 1985 on the file of the Court of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. Between: 1.Kalpuri Ellamma 2.Ramu Sammu Bai. Petitioner/Judgment Debtor AND Nellutla Venkata Lakshmi W/o Bhaskar Rao, Occ: Household, R/o 1-7673, Subedari, Hanumakonda, Warangal. Respondent/Decree Holder The petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the petition and the memo of grounds filed herein and the order of the High Court dated 27.12.2004 and dated 04.10.2005 made herein and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.O. Manohar Reddy, Advocate for the Petitioners and of Mr.P.R. Prasad, Advocate for the Respondent. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING ORDER: “On 27.12.2004 this Court while making interim order made it clear that “the revision petitioner shall not proceed with any construction and shall not interfere with the possession of the respondents in respect of the suit schedule property.” It appears on 04.10.2005 this Court made the following Order :- “As against the orders passed by the Court below in E.P.No.1087 of 2002 in O.S.No.445 of 1985, dated 09.12.2004, punishing the petitioners- contemnors for willfully disobeying the decree dated 14.10.1996, passed by the said Court in O.S.No.445 of 2005, this revision petition has been filed. From the facts, this Court is of the view that definitely the petitioners disobeyed the decree dated 14.10.1996, in not allowing the respondent- Decree Holder from proceeding with the construction of the compound wall. However, the learned counsel for the respondent-Decree Holder tried to impress upon this Court stating that during the pendency of this revision i.e., subsequent to the order passed punishing the petitioners-contemnors, the petitioners-contemnors constructed a toilet encroaching into the lands of the respondent-Decree Holder and therefore unless and until the said construction is removed, it is possible for the respondent-Decree Holder to proceed with the construction of the compound wall. In that regard, he pressed into service some photographs also. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners-contemnors, no doubt, there are some constructions, but, the said constructions were made by the petitioners-contemnors in their own right in the land belonging to them, and therefore they did not encroach into any of the land belonging to the respondent-Decree Holder. It is his further submission that if at all there are any constructions, the said constructions were made only prior to the filing of the execution petition, but, not subsequent to the filing of execution petition and he also pressed into service some photographs to establish the said fact. :: 2 :: In the light of the submissions made by both the counsel and also after looking into the photographs, in the interest of both the parties, this court is of the view that it is appropriate to direct the Court blow to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to localize, the E.P. schedule property and submit a report as to whether any constructions were made after the date of passing of after in execution petition i.e., 09-12-2004 encroaching into the site of the respondent-Decree Holder taking into consideration the schedules of the plaint and the execution petition. Accordingly, the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, is hereby directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of measuring the schedule properties and submit a report mentioning specifically as to whether any constructions were made subsequent to the date of order passed in E.P.No.1087 of 2002 i.e. 09-12-2004. However, the parties are at liberty to furnish work memos to the Advocate-Commissioner. Post the revision petition after four weeks.” An Advocate-Commissioner was appointed and a report was filed and objections to the report of the Advocate-Commissioner also had been filed. Several of the factual details had been narrated by the Advocate-Commissioner. In the light of the specific objections raised and also in the light of certain of the observations made by the Commissioner in his report, it would be just and appropriate to examine the Commissioner. Hence, the learned Judge to record the evidence of the Commissioner and forward the same to this Court within a period of four weeks from today. Office to dispatch the copy of the order to the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal.” ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To 1.The Principal Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. 2. Nellutla Venkata Lakshmi W/o Bhaskar Rao, Occ: Household, R/o 1-7673, Subedari, Hanumakonda, Warangal. 3.One spare copy. H.A. . HIGH COURT PSNJ DATED : 23-03-06 ORDER : CRP NO.6700 OF 2004 DIRECTION