HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.R.P.No. 3743 of 2001 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order, dated 02- 03-2001 passed in E.A.No.85 of 1998 in E.P.No.25 of 1996 in O.S.No.112 of 1991 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Palakonda. The revision petitioners are the judgment debtors. 2. The petitioners filed E.A.No.85 of 1998 to set aside the delivery proceedings in E.P.No.25 of 1996 in O.S.No.112 of 1991 and not to record the delivery said to have been effected by the Court Amin on 05-11-1997, since plaint ‘A’ schedule land in O.S.No.112 of 1991 is not the subject matter of the registered sale deed, dated 02- 04-1979. The averments made in the E.A. are that the first petitioner and the second petitioner sold one acre of land in favour of the respondents under a duly registered sale deed, dated 02-04-1979. The second respondent was minor at that time. The petitioners, being innocent persons, could not verify the documents, thereby the survey numbers are mistakenly mentioned as 229/26A and 229/26B on the information furnished by one of the attestors of the said sale deed. As there were some ill-feelings regarding the politics in between the petitioners and one Lonka Srinivasa Rao, Village Administrative Officer of Nadukuru village, at his instance, the suit was filed against the petitioners taking advantage of the wrong survey numbers in the sale deed, dated 02-04-1979, which was numbered as O.S.No.112 of 1991, wherein the respondents mentioned the total extent of the land as Ac.1-20 cents and the survey numbers as 229/26A and 229/26B in the plaint schedule and furnished wrong boundaries. The land mentioned in plaint ‘A’ schedule of O.S.No.112 of 1991 is not the land sold to the respondents. In the said suit, the respondents prayed for declaration that plaint ‘A’ schedule lands are the subject matter of the sale deed, dated 02-04-1979. The petitioners remained ex parte in the suit and they suffered a decree, dated 30-03-1993. Subsequently, the delivery was ordered in E.P. No.25 of 1996 and the same was effected on 05- 11-1997 as per the report of the Court Amin dated 06-11-1997. Therefore, they filed the E.A. seeking the reliefs as stated above. 3. The first respondent filed counter denying the averments made in the E.A. It is alleged that the petitioners colluded with one Sathujoda Umamaheswari and got filed a suit in O.S.No.76 of 1997 with regard to 63 cents of land covered by Survey No.229/26B. The petition schedule land did not fall to the share of Bobbadi Ramamurti Naidu in the family partition, whereas it belongs to Bobbadi Jagannadham Naidu. The respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the land and granting pattedar passbook in favour of the second petitioner does not confer any right or interest on the petitioners as they suffered a decree in O.S.No.112 of 1991. 4. During the course of enquiry before the trial Court, on behalf of the petitioners, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-8 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, RW-1 was examined and Exs.B-1 to B-4 were got marked. The trial Court, after elaborate enquiry, dismissed the E.A. through the impugned order. Aggrieved by the same, the present C.R.P. is filed. 5. Now the point for consideration is whether the petitioners are able to make out a case for setting aside the delivery proceedings in E.P.No.25 of 1996 in O.S.No.112 of 1991 and whether the impugned order is sustainable? POINT: 6. The second petitioner was examined as PW-1 and he asserted that the land was sold to the respondents without taking measurements. The extent of the land was mentioned approximately as one acre. The land was delivered under Ex.A-1 sale deed to the respondents, but the survey numbers were wrongly mentioned as 229/26A and 229/26B in Ex.A-1 sale deed. The evidence of PW-2 corroborated the evidence of PW-1 regarding the mistake in mentioning the survey numbers in Ex.A-1 sale deed. According to RW-1, petitioner Nos.1 and 2 sold Ac.1-20 cents of land under Ex.A-1 sale deed and the extent of the land existing on ground is only 65 cents. Basing on the variation in the extent, they filed the suit in O.S.No.112 of 1991. 7. The contention raised by the petitioners is that they were in possession and enjoyment of the land covered by Sy.Nos.229/26A and 229/26B, however, the same was not disputed by the respondents, but they sought for delivery of that land by filing E.P.No.25 of 1996 and accordingly, the delivery was ordered. 8. Exs.A-2 to A-7 indicate that the petitioners are in possession of the land in Sy.Nos.229/26A and 229/26B. As on the date of filing the E.P., the decree of the trial Court was not amended. Therefore, it is the settled proposition of law that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree. A perusal of the entire record, it may be a fact that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A-1 sale deed are incorrect. But the trial Court passed the decree in favour of the respondents basing on the pleadings and the plaint schedule in the suit. There is no evidence on record to establish that wrong boundaries are mentioned in Ex.A-1, sale deed, and in the plaint schedule in O.S.No.112 of 1991. Therefore, the trial Court well discussed the evidence on record and held that there is no evidence whatsoever, except the evidence of PW-1 that boundaries were wrongly mentioned in Ex.A-1 sale deed, and accordingly, dismissed the petition with cogent reasons. Therefore, the order of the trial Court is sustainable and I see no grounds to interfere with the same. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date: 03-12-2011 YCR