IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOS.5962 AND 5963 OF 2010 Date:09.03.2011 C.R.P.NO.5962 OF 2010 Between:- Badoshullah Shariff .. Petitioner. A N D Bondili Balaji Singh(Died) and others. .. Respondents. C.R.P.NO.5963 OF 2010 Between:- Badoshullah Shariff .. Petitioner. A N D Bondili Balaji Singh(Died) and others. .. Respondents. The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: The Judgment Debtor in O.S.No.394 of 1979 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram is the revision petitioner herein in both the revisions. A suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was originally filed and the same was dismissed in the lower Court and in the appeal the suit was decreed and the second appeal also was dismissed on 12.07.2006 upholding the judgment of the appellate Court. 2. Thereafter, the present E.P.No.163 of 2009 was filed on 20.03.2009 for recovery of possession of the property and demolition of structures, which are said to exist. The Judgment Debtor filed objections contending that the E.P. was barred by time and the decree is not executable and the other portion of the property, which is in possession of the revision petitioner will be put to loss and the property, which is sought to be demolished is valuable and the revision petitioner is prepared to pay the market value of the property, if properly valued, instead of demolition, and therefore the execution was opposed. Simultaneously, an application was filed under Section 47 of Civil Procedure Code (for short CPC) questioning the executability of the decree and the same was not numbered, against that C.R.P.No.5963 of 2010 was filed. The lower Court did not accept with the contentions raised by the revision petitioner and ordered for delivery of the property. 3. Aggrieved by the said Order in the E.P.No.163 of 2009 in O.S.No.394 of 1979 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, the C.R.P.No.5962 of 2001 is filed. Notices were ordered to the respondents, but none appeared. 4. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner contends that though the decrees have become final, the decree of mandatory injunction is now sought to be executed by demolishing structures and if the structures are demolished, the other extent of the property, which is in possession of the revision petitioner will be put to damage and loss and the revision petitioner is prepared to pay the market value of the property. In fact, the lower Court has not considered this aspect as to the feasibility of working out any solution between the parties. So far as the executability of the decree is concerned, there cannot be any doubt about its maintainability and the objections under Section 47 of CPC sought to be raised also cannot be considered and the rejection is legal. Therefore, the C.R.P.No.5963 of 2010 is liable to be dismissed. 5. However, so far as the execution is concerned, I feel that several hardships are claimed by the Judgment Debtor and in fact the Judgment Debtor is prepared to pay the market value of the property, an effort can be made by the lower Court for amicable solution or satisfaction of the decree by valuation of the same and by purchase of the property by the Judgment Debtor or the Decree Holder. The Judgment Debtor also can approach the Decree Holder and seek a possible settlement. Evidently, part of the property, which is sought to be demolished is originally the property said to have been purchased from the father of the Decree Holder long time back and has been in possession and enjoyment of the Judgment Debtor. 6. In the result, the C.R.P.No.5962 of 2010 is allowed and the Order of the lower Court is set aside and the lower Court is directed to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner to settle the matter with the Decree Holder either by negotiation or by other mode of satisfying the decree by payment of the monetary value, and if both parties agree, the lower Court can implement the same, otherwise it can proceed in accordance with law. The lower Court is directed to dispose of the matter within Three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order. The C.R.P.No.5963 of 2010 is dismissed. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs. ______________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 09th March, 2011 KSP