THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.2204 of 2010 BETWEEN: 1. Channamsetty Chandraiah, S/o. Narasaiah, R/o. Channsettipalli Village H/o. T. Sundupalli Village, and Mandal, Kadapa District, and another. PETITIONERS And Channamsetty Narayana, S/o. Venkatappa, R/o. Channsettipalli Village, H/o. T. Sundupalli Village and Mandal, Kadapa District. RESPONDENT Counsel for Petitioners: Sri D. Seshasayana Reddy Counsel for Respondent: Sri V.R. Reddy Kovvuri The Court made the following Order: ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.147 of 2004 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Rayachoty, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property, and perpetual injunction in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for, after contest, on 31.03.2008. Alleging that the petitioners violated the decree for perpetual injunction in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property, the respondent filed E.P.No.3 of 2009 under Order 21 Rule 32 C.P.C. with a prayer to detain the petitioners in civil prison. In that E.P. the petitioners filed E.A.No.40 of 2010 with a prayer to appoint an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26 Rule 10-A C.P.C. They pleaded that ‘B’ Schedule property was demarcated fixing the specific boundaries during the pendency of the suit itself, and they have not encroached into any land so demarcated. The trial Court dismissed the E.A. by observing that such a course would result in traveling beyond the scope of the decree. Hence the revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent. The decree for perpetual injunction granted by the trial Court against the petitioners in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property, has become final. The respondent complains that the petitioners are interfering with his possession over ‘B’ Schedule property. The limited context in which the petitioners wanted to appoint an Advocate Commissioner was to ascertain as to whether the petitioners have encroached into ‘B’ Schedule property at all. The petitioner did not intend either to reopen the matter or to make a claim vis-à-vis ‘B’ Schedule property. On the other hand, they have acknowledged the title and possession of the respondent over the ‘B’ Schedule property. When the respondent wanted arrest of the petitioners on the ground that they have violated the decree, it becomes essential to verify as to whether the petitioners have crossed the boundaries of ‘B’ Schedule property at all. Appointment of Advocate Commissioner for that limited purpose is not said to be out side the scope of the decree. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order under revision is set aside. Consequentially E.A.No.40 of 2010 is allowed. The Executing Court is directed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner limiting his work only to one of ascertaining whether the petitioners have encroached into any part of the land in ‘B’ Schedule property. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. 19th July, 2010 Js.