THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4263, 4397, 4424 and 4812 of 2011 COMMON ORDER: These four revisions are filed against the orders passed by the Court of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole in various applications filed in E.P.No.47 of 2008 in O.S.No.492 of 1988. The petitioner filed the suit for the relief of declaration as to his right of passage over the portion marked as ‘ZZ1’ in the plaint plan, alleging that the same was encroached at the places marked as X2, X3 and X4. The trial Court decreed the suit after contest on 26.11.1996. Complaining that the respondents brought about certain structures, by encroaching the passage, the petitioner filed E.P.No.47 of 2008. In the course of enquiry into the E.P., the petitioner filed four applications being E.A.Nos.1267, 1268, 1269 and 1270 of 2010 for summoning certain records from the Ongole Municipality and for other related reliefs. The executing Court dismissed the applications stating that grant of such reliefs would be outside the scope of the E.P. Hence, these revisions. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. The decree obtained by the petitioner was the one for declaration of his right to use the passage with certain description. The only verification in the E.P. would be as to its actual dimension and to find out whether there is any encroachment on the passage so identified. It may be true that the respondents pleaded assignment of an item of land in the immediate neighbourhood in its favour. Even if that is true, the respondents cannot be permitted to encroach the passage. For this purpose, there should be determination as to the exact dimension and the area of the passage. It is only then the Court can come to the conclusion. The applications filed by the petitioner are totally outside the scope of the revision. Even now, the parties as well as the Court can concentrate on the question of determination of the exact area and dimensions of the passage and to know whether any encroachments have taken place. Therefore, the civil revision petitions are dismissed directing the trial Court to expedite the disposal of the E.P. in the lines indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 14.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.4263, 4397, 4424 and 4812 of 2011 Date: 14.12.2011 JSU