THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.5115 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner-second judgment debtor invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 {“CPC” for brevity}, inter alia, seeking to assail the order dated 02.07.2009 in E.P.No.72 of 2007 in O.S.No.12 of 1983 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Bapatla, which has been laid by the respondent- decree holder in pursuance of the decree obtained in a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.12 of 1983 dated 09.09.1988 and as confirmed by the I Additional District Judge, Guntur, in A.S.No.178 of 1988 on 15.03.1994. By taking into account the various submissions made on either side, the Court below did not find favour with the objection raised in regard to the extent of land to be identified and rejected with a categorical and substantive finding that having regard to the evidence as adduced on behalf of the respondent as D.W.1 and the petitioner as R.W.1, where it is admitted that the decree holder is residing in the petition schedule property since 1994, there is clear-cut identification and hence, the schedule property is clearly identified. Therefore, there is no further need to identify the said property. Hence, the revision. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and on perusal of the material available on record, necessarily, it calls for having a look at the decree, which reads as under. (a) That the Execution Petition be and the same is hereby allowed. (b) That as the second judgment debtor failed to execute the regular sale deed within stipulated time given by the Court and the balance of sale consideration is already deposited into Court, it is hereby directed to send the draft sale deed to the Sub-Registrar, Bapatla, for execution of registered sale deed by this Court for the execution petition schedule property to an extent of Ac.0.04 ½ cents of site (Half) in favour of the decree- holder and after receiving sale deed by this Court, it is ordered to be given to the decree-holder. From the above, it is seen that absolutely; a direction was not given to the effect that there is need for a partition or identification of the property and only to proceed with the execution of the sale deed. Clause (b) says that is only when there is dispute, steps have to be taken. After considering the depositions of P.W.1 and R.W.1, apart from the other material on record to the effect that there is no need for any such exercise and the property has already been identified, the said finding being a factum, it can be safely concluded that the same does not in any way run contra to the decree. Hence, I do not find any error in the order of the Court below to warrant interference under Section 115 CPC. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO, J) 3rd September 2010 RRB