HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 368 OF 2010 Friday, the Fifth day of February, Two Thousand and Ten Between B.Rama Rao Petitioner AND Smt. Jayasree Rao Respondent THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. NO. 368 OF 2010 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeks to assail the order dated 19.08.2009 in EA No. 305 of 2009 in E.P. No. 79 of 2009 in O.S. 1456 of 1997 passed by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the judgment debtor under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to determine all the issues raised by the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein is the judgment debtor and the respondent herein is the decree holder. It is stated by the petitioner that the decree holder has intentionally described the suit property as open land, whereas the petitioner – judgment debtor has categorically averred that he had constructed building over the said property with the approval of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. It is also his case that neither there is relief for mandatory injunction for the removal of structure sought for by the decree holder nor there is any direction in the decree for removal of structure, and as such the decree holder is not entitled to the relief sought for. Whereas it is the case of the decree holder – respondent that it is specifically averred that the petitioner – judgment debtor had trespassed into the land and made illegal constructions. It is further her case that her right, title and interest are upheld by the judgment and decree dated 25.11.1999 in the above suit, which was confirmed by this court vide judgment and decree dated 20.3.2009 passed in CCCA No. 256 of 1999 and the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 14853 of 2009, preferred therefrom to the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the petitioner herein was also dismissed by order dated 17.7.2009. The court below by the order impugned herein has dismissed the application as not maintainable observing that all the questions sought to be adjudicated were already adjudged in the suit and no new question arise for adjudication as sought for by the petitioner in the application filed under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. As can be seen from the order impugned, the right, title and interest of the decree holder is confirmed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 17.7.2009 in SLP (Civil) No. 14853 of 2009, therefore, as observed by the court below, the illegal constructions carried on by the petitioner – judgment debtor has no protection and does not require any mandatory direction. The court below has exhaustively dealt with the contentions raised by the petitioner herein and has negatived the relief sought for by the petitioner. The petitioner herein, in CRP No. 5309 of 2009 also assailed the order dated 19.08.2009 passed in EA No. 304 of 2009 in E.P. No. 79 of 2009 in O.S. 1456 of 1997 by the learned V Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed by the petitioner herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. seeking to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises for assessing the viability of demolition of structures with the assistance of a qualified engineer. The said Civil Revision Petition, filed by the petitioner was also dismissed by this court by order dated 29.1.2010. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I am of the considered view that no grounds are made out to interfere with the observations made by the court below and I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari February 5, 2010 MAS