THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CRP No.1552 of 2011 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent. 2. This revision petition is filed against the order dated 28-3-2011 passed in EA No.148 of 2010 in EA No.74 of 2009 in EA No.459 of 2005 in EP No.88 of 1997 in OS No.497 of 1993 by the I Jr. Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. The defendants in the suit are the revision petitioners herein. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated 31-7-1967 and the same was decreed on 4-9-1995 and it became final. Since the defendants failed to execute the sale deed, on a petition being filed by the plaintiff, the Court executed the sale deed on 21-2-1998. The plaintiff filed the EA 228 of 1999 for delivery of possession which was dismissed by the Court below, against which the matter was carried to this Court and this Court in CRP No.1854 of 2000 allowed the case. Thereafter the plaintiff filed applications seeking delivery of possession of the plot in question. The present application is filed under Section 151 CPC seeking modification of the earlier order passed. The dispute is with regard to the identification of the plot in question. Under those circumstances, the order of the Court below appointing an advocate commissioner to give effect to the terms of the decree and delivery possession of the plot in questions does not warrant any interfere by this Court. The decision in BRAHMDEO CHAUDHARY vs. RISHIKESH PRASAD JAISWAL (AIR 1997 SC 856) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case as in this case the dispute is with regard to the identification of the plot in question. The civil revision petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed, at the admission stage itself. __________________________ Ghulam Mohammed, J Dated: 26-7-2011 Nrg