THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 5646 of 2008 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.713 of 1985 in the Court of Additional Chief Judge-cum-Principal Special Judge for SPE & ACB Cases, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, against respondents 6 to 8 and another person by name Jama Khan for the relief of recovery of possession of the property in D.Nos.2-4-630, 2-4-631 and 2-4- 631/2 situated at Sundernagar, Kachiguda, Amberpet Road, Hyderabad. The suit was decreed on 31.03.1990. He filed E.P.No.24 of 1997 in the Court of XXII Additional Chief Judge-cum- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Hyderabad against, the sixth respondent alone, for recovery of possession of the property in D.No.2-4-631/2. On the basis of a warrant issued by the Executing Court on 16.10.2008 the bailiff submitted a report, dated 25.10.2008. He stated that when he proceeded to the schedule premises, the sixth respondent was not present and by taking help of police, he has dispossessed the relations of the sixth respondent staying in that premises. Respondents 1 to 5 filed E.A.No.11 of 2008 before the Executing Court complaining that the petitioner herein is highhandedly trying to dispossess them from the premises D.No.2- 4-629. They have mentioned that when similar steps were taken in the year 2007 they filed E.A.No.13 of 2007 and the Executing Court allowed the same by recording clear finding to the effect that the premises in their possession are those in 2-4-629 and despite the same, the petitioner is trying to interfere with their possession. Reference was also made to certain steps taken by the District Legal Services Authority. The Executing Court allowed the present E.A. on 8.12.2008 directing the petitioner to hand over the keys relating to the premises to respondents 1 to 5 in the form of interim custody. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the same filed the C.R.P. Heard Sri B. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. Pulla Reddy for Sri Mohd. Ghulam Hussain, learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. The decree obtained by the petitioner was in respect of three premises mentioned above. It is not known as to whether any execution was initiated as regards the premises in D.Nos.2-4-630 and 2-4-631. Ten years ago, execution proceedings, in respect of premises in D.No.2-4-631/2, were initiated. Initially, an order was passed in E.P. and respondents 1 to 5 herein were evicted. They approached the Court by filing E.A.No.13 of 2007. After hearing the parties at length and after taking note of the various proceedings, the Executing Court allowed the E.A. as under. “In the result, claim petition is allowed declaring that objection petitioners are entitled to protect their possession over the property bearing H.No.2-4-629 situated at Sundernagar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad. Respondent No.1/DHR is not entitled to proceed against property D.No.2-4-629 situated at Sundernagar, Kachiguda, Hyderabad, as same is not subject matter of the decree obtained by him. I direct the parties to bear their own costs in this petition.” From this, it is clear that the premises in possession and enjoyment of respondents 1 to 5 are totally different from those in 2- 4-631/2. For the reasons best known to him, the petitioner once again presented E.P. only against the first judgment debtor, i.e., the sixth respondent herein. Without taking note of the earlier proceedings, the Executing Court has, straight away issued, the warrant. A perusal of the report, dated 25.10.2008 filed by the bailiff discloses that he had faced resistance from respondents 1 to 5 and by taking police help and certain labourers, he evicted them. Such a step was totally out side the scope of warrant issued, and his action deserves to be deprecated. Order XXI C.P.C. contains several provisions, which deal with the instances of resistance, if offered during the course of execution. In case there was any resistance from third parties, the bailiff ought to have approached the Executing Court for necessary directions. Certain steps taken by the District Legal Services Authority have further complicated the issue. Acting almost as an appellate authority, the District Legal Services Authority has set at naught, the entire execution proceedings and the premises were locked. The Executing Court has referred to the various developments that have ensued in the matter and ultimately passed the order under revision. This Court is of the view that E.P.No.24 of 1997 needs fresh consideration and examination, ignoring all the steps that have been taken place so far. The schedule of the property, is not clear, be it as regards the boundaries or the extent. At one stage, the Executing Court has recorded a finding to the effect that the premises, in the possession of respondents 1 to 5, are those in 2-4- 629. The petitioner did not implead all the judgment debtors. In view of this, it must be ensured that any further steps in the E.P. shall be after verification of relevant facts and after affording an opportunity to the concerned parties. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed directing that a) The steps, which have been taken so far by the Executing Court, in E.P. 24 of 1997, are set aside. b) The Executing Court shall decide afresh, the E.P. only after the full particulars of the property, together with the extent and boundaries are mentioned, which in turn, must be supported by the record. c) If the bailiff is able to locate the property so mentioned, and he finds any persons other than the judgment debtors in the possession of the same, he shall simply report the fact to the Executing Court, which in turn shall take further steps, after hearing the effected persons. ______________________ (L. Narasimha Reddy, J.) 7th August, 2009 Js.