THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2412 OF 2009 O R D E R: This revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order, dated 20.03.2009 passed in E.P.No.235 of 2001 in O.S.No.646 of 1998 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. The petitioners herein are the judgment debtors and the respondents are the decree holders. E.P.No.235 of 2001 is filed by the decree holders under Order 21 Rule 35 of C.P.C., against the judgment debtors for delivery of P.P. schedule property to the decree holders. By order, dated 20.03.2009, I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole, allowed the E.P., by appointing an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the land with the assistance of the Surveyor and a further direction to take steps for delivery of the property. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtors filed this revision petition. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the suit was filed for recovery of possession of Ac. 2.25 cents of land, but the court below granted relief more than Ac 11.00 of land; that before delivery of the property, the trial court ought to have appointed a Surveyor to survey the entire land and demarcate 84½ cents of the defendants’ property, which is to the north of the canal; that though the decree was granted in favour of the decree holders, the schedule was not amended and if the schedule property is delivered to the decree holders, there will be further complication; that if the decree holders are found in possession of more than Ac 11.18 cents of land, the judgment debtors will have a right over the excess land; that the impugned order passed by the court below is erroneous; that the decree is passed only in respect of delivery of the land to an extent of Ac.11.18 cents, but the Commissioner submitted his report beyond the decree; that if there is no land available in that Ac.11.18 cents, the judgment debtors will have a right over the said land; that the impugned order amounts to conferring a right to the decree holders over which land they have no scope beyond the decree and that as the impugned order is contrary to the order passed by this court in C.R.P No. 1907 of 2007, the order of the court below is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/decree holders submits that the decree holders are entitled for an extent of Ac.11.18 cents of land; that in pursuance of the judgment passed by the appellate court, the executing court will have to execute the decree in terms of the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court; that in compliance with the directions issued by this court in C.R.P No. 1907 of 2007, the court below appointed an Advocate Commissioner and that as the judgment passed in A.S No. 120 of 1994 has become final by virtue of the order passed by this court in S.A No. 485 of 2001, the impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity and accordingly, the C.R.P is liable to be dismissed. To resolve this controversy, the brief facts of the case need to be noted, which are as under: The facts of the case are not in dispute to the extent mentioned hereinabove. O.S No. 646 of 2005 is filed seeking for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property in an extent of Ac 2.25 cents of agricultural land in S.No.700, Mynampur Village, Ongole District. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs filed A.S No. 120 of 1994 on the file of the District Judge, Ongole. The same was allowed by judgment and decree, dated 14.05.2001. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/defendants filed an appeal in S.A No. 485 of 2001. This Court by order, dt. 12.09.2005, dismissed the appeal with certain clarifications. Aggrieved by the same, the decree holders filed E.P No. 235 of 2001 on the file of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Ongole. By order, dt.21.05.2003, the court below allowed the E.P., by appointing an Advocate-Commissioner. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtors filed C.R.P No. 1907 of 2007 before this Court and this Court by order, dated 20.10.2008, directed the court below to examine the issue whether the decree of the court below is to be amended and then to demarcate 84½ cents of defendants’ property to the north of the canal and deliver the remaining land to the decree holders and for that purpose, directed the lower court, if necessary, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner and take steps for delivery of the property. Having regard to the said order, the court below passed the impugned order, appointing an Advocate-Commissioner to demarcate the land with the assistance of the Surveyor, as per clause-2 of the decree directions in order to take steps for delivery of the property. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that by the impugned order, dt. 20.03.2009, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to demarcate the land with the assistance of the Surveyor as per clause-2 of the decree, which shows that the defendants be and hereby were directed to deliver 84½ cents of land to the north of the canal and deliver the remaining land to the decree holders. The learned counsel also submits that the order passed by the court below is erroneous to the order passed by this court in the revision; that the learned District Judge, Ongole, passed decree and judgment, dt. 14.03.2001 holding that the plaintiffs be and hereby are entitled for Ac.11.18 cents plot on the immediate north of Ac.4.03½ cents of plot of the defendants; that the defendants be and hereby were directed to deliver possession of the entire extent situate on the north of the canal after retaining an extent Ac.0.18½ cents to the north of the canal all along East-West. Therefore, the decree holders are entitled to only Ac. 11.18 cents of land, but not more than that, and if there is more land available in that Ac. 11.18 cents, the decree holders does not have a right over it. Consequent to the impugned order, the decree holders are going to get more than that of the land mentioned in the decree, which amounts to passing an order contrary to the order of this court. The learned counsel for the respondents submits that this court while passing the orders in S.A No. 485 of 2001, dt. 12.09.2005, clarified the order of the first appellate court in A.S No. 120 of 2004, which shows that “therefore, the findings of the lower appellate court are based on sound principles of evaluation of both oral and documentary evidence. In partition like this, the parties must not have taken actual measurements at the time of partition itself and there is a possibility that one share may be in possession of more than the allotted land. This is one such case. Therefore, the lower appellate court on the basis of Exs.B-1 to B-7 has rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration of their title as prayed for i.e., Ac. 2.25 cents, which is inclusive of Ac.11.18 cents of land, which land was got by them from their ancestors in partition and under Ex.A1 sale deed (Ac.8.06 cents + Ac.3.12 cents = Ac.11.18 cents). Further it is not the case of the defendants that they have purchased any extent of land from anyone in that survey number. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal and the second appeal fails and as such is dismissed.” Admittedly, this court in S.A No. 485 of 2001 has clarified the subject matter of the revision stating that it was not the case of the defendants that they have purchased any extent of land from any one in that survey number. In pursuance to the order of this court as to whether any land is available other than Ac. 11.18 cents of land, the court below found that there is no land in respect of the land claimed by the decree holders, other than the land, which was mentioned in the decree. Since there is no land as claimed by the decree holders about the land mentioned in the decree, it is submitted that if any land is available over that land, the decree holder cannot have any right over the said land. Further, it has to be seen whether the trial court has passed any order contrary to the order passed by this court in C.R.P No. 1907 of 2007, wherein this court observed that “the learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that though the appellate court granted the decree, the Decree Holders, the schedule was not accordingly amended and if the suit schedule property is delivered, which is contrary to the directions given by the appellate court, there will be further complication. Therefore, he requested to issue directions to the court below to amend the decree as per the judgment of the appellate court and demarcate 84½ cents of defendants property to the North of the canal and deliver remaining land to the Decree Holders. The court below may examine this issue and, if necessary, appoint an advocate commissioner to demarcate the land and then take steps for delivery of the property”. Having regard to the judgment and decree passed by the court below and having regard to the orders passed by this court in S.A No. 485 of 2001 and C.R.P No. 1907 of 2007, the point that arises for consideration is whether the impugned order is liable to be set aside? Section 47 of C.P.C., confers powers on the executing court to determine any questions with regard to the discharge satisfaction etc., and by virtue of Section 51 (e) of C.P.C., executing court can enforce execution in such a manner, as the nature of relief granted may require. If the court satisfies that such orders need to be decided, it can come to a conclusion and grant the relief as required. As the judgment debtors and the decree holders are having equal rights in view of the common tenancy held by them, in the absence of such assertion, it is not possible to give any such direction. In the instant case, having regard to the powers vested in the executing court, after considering the issues raised by the judgment debtors and having regard to the orders passed by this court in C.R.P No. 1907 of 2007, the court below passed the impugned order appointing an Advocate Commissioner to demarcate the land with the assistance of the Surveyor. Therefore, the executing court passed the impugned orders in terms of the decree and judgment passed in A.S No. 120 of 1994, which has become final in S.A No. 485 of 2001 and also in compliance with the order of this court in C.R.P No. 1907 of 2007. Therefore, I do not see any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order so as to interfere with the said order by this Court. Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________________ G. CHANDRAIAH, J Dt. 09.09.2009 tjs