THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CRP.NO.2529 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision is filed against the order E.A.No.55 of 2011 in E.P.No.322 of 2011 in O.S.No.1321 of 1999 challenging the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The revision petitioner is the owner of the property and the respondent has filed the suit for injunction claiming to be a tenant of the premises. A compromise decree has been entered into and the respondent has agreed to deliver the premises. As the respondent has not complied with the undertaking given in the compromise decree, E.P was filed and the delivery was ordered and the Bailiff has gone to the premises. The contention of the respondent is that there is a room on the rear side with some stocks and it was broke open and some stocks are still lying. The question of excutability of the decree or otherwise does not arise. The question of noting down of physical features is also beyond the scope of warrant of commission for which the appointment was sought. The suit premises are entirely covered by the suit for an injunction. The respondent is a tenant of that premises also and he has undertaken to execute the same. Therefore, in view of the allegations that the Bailiff has not properly conducted, the Advocate Commissioner is only to visit the premises and note if any stocks are available in the rear side room of the premises and handover the same under acknowledgment to the respondent. The Advocate Commissioner shall also report whether the stocks as alleged are available or not and whether the rear side room was removed or still existing. To that extent only the Advocate Commissioner has to execute the warrant. With the above modification the order of the lower court is confirmed and the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 29-07-2011 TSNR