THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P.NO.1827 OF 2009 O R D E R Heard both the counsel. 2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18.11.2008 passed by the court of Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in E.A.No.51/2008 in E.P.No.26/1985 in O.S.No.16/1975 in dismissing the E.A. filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor for transfer of the petition schedule property from symbolic possession to physical possession under Order 21, Rule 97, 98, 99 and 101 read with Section 151 C.P.C. 3. From the material on record, it could be seen that the respondents filed suit in O.S.No.16 of 1975 for partition of plaint A and B schedule properties on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad. Plaint A schedule consists of land in an extent of 2,395 sq. feet and B schedule is an agricultural land in an extent of Acs.10.04 guntas situated at Hashakothur, Nizamabad District and residential house and a kottam. The suit was partly decreed on 26.6.1978 allotting 1/4th share in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs in both the A and B schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein, who is the judgment debtor, filed first appeal in A.S.No.781/1978 before this court and the respondents also filed cross- objections, claiming for allotment of half share in the suit schedule property. The first appeal in A.S.No.781/1978 and cross-objections were dismissed by judgment dated 1.3.1985 and the preliminary decree for partition was confirmed. The respondents/plaintiffs earlier filed I.A.No.2085/1978 for passing of the final decree. After the disposal of the first appeal, final decree was passed on 27.9.1985. Thereafter, the respondents filed E.P.No.26/1985 and in the said execution petition, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he submitted reportupon which the properties are allotted and possession was delivered on 8.11.1985. Aggrieved by the order in I.A.No.2085/1978, the revision petitioner filed A.S.No.2991/1985 before this court and the same was dismissed by order dated 2.8.2005. In A.S.No.2991/1985 the contention of the revision petitioner is that the suit A schedule property is not measured and not properly allotted and sought for appointment of an Advocate commissioner to re-measure the property. The said contention is rejected by this court. Against the revision petitioner filed E.A.No.31/2007 before the court below for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for measurement of the property. The said E.A. was dismissed on 22.6.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the revision petitioner filed C.R.P.No.3137/2007 before this court and by order dated 7.3.1008 the revision was dismissed. The said order is extracted as under: “This civil revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, has been filed aggrieved by the order dated 22.6.2007 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Nizamabad in E.A.No.31 of 2007 in E.P.No.26 of 1985 in O.S.No.16 of 1975. 2. Respondents herein had filed the aforesaid suit against the petitioner for partition and separate possession of A and B schedule properties. After passing preliminary decree, the court below appointed an Advocate – Commissioner for apportionment of A and B schedule properties. After the Advocate-Commissioner submitted his report, final decree was passed. Challenging the final decree, petitioner filed A.S.No.2991 of 1985 before this court and the same has ended in dismissal. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that as the Advocate- Commissioner has not taken the measurements properly, he has filed his objections, but however, the same were not considered. Therefore, he has filed E.A.No.31 of 2007 under Section 47 read with Order XXVI Rule 13 CPC seeking appointment of another commissioner to apportion the premises situated at R.P. Road, Nizamabad. 4. However, it is to be noticed that challenging the final decree, petitioner preferred A.S.No.2991 of 1985 and the same was dismissed by this court. It is stated that in terms of the final decree, respective parties were already put in possession and thus the decree was executed. When the final decree was passed overruling the objections of the petitioner and the same was confirmed by this court in the first appeal referred to above, it is not open for the petitioner to seek appointment of another commissioner at this stage. Hence, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the court below, warranting interference under Section 115 CPC. 5. Civil Revision petition is devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.” 4. Again the revision petitioner fled the present revision for transfer of symbolic possession to physical possession and to order the bailiff to handover the actual possession by ascertaining the correct area of the width of walls between mulgies of the suit schedule property, which was allotted to the respondent/D.Hrs to make it separate portions as per the decreed by the court in O.S.No.16/1975 dated 27.9.1985. 5. From the above facts it could be seen that the schedule property was delivered physically to the respondents. Therefore, the present petition seeking physical possession from symbolic possession, cannot be sustained and the revision is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. No costs. AVS ---------------------------- - 03.03.2010