HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI C.R.P. No. 5309 OF 2009 Friday, the Twenty Ninth of January, 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. 5309 OF 2009 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. 304 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 Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. 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 petitioner herein is the judgment debtor and the respondent herein being the decree holder, has identified the structure to be removed, which according to the petitioner cannot be removed without the assistance of a qualified engineer and any attempt to remove the structure may hamper the utility of the total structure and may cause extensive damage. Hence, sought for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the premises for assessing the viability of demolition of structures with the assistance of a qualified engineer. The court below observing that in EA No. 305 of 2009 filed by the petitioner under Sec. 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it had determined all the issues and there are no further issues to be determined, dismissed the petition. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed inter alia contending that the executing court ought to have considered that the petitioner sought assistance only in order to facilitate the decree holder and to execute the decree without causing any obstruction and sought appointment of the Commissioner in order to assess the viability of the structure with the assistance of qualified engineer. As can be seen from the order impugned, the court below has observed that it had expressed the opinion in EA No. 305 of 2009 as regards the issues raised and there are no issues to further determine the same. Having gone through the 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 January 29, 2010 MAS