IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3006 of 2010 Between: Mohd. Jalaluddin Akabar @ Mohd. Jalaluddin Ali Khan and others ..... PETITIONER (S) AND State of A.P. rep. by its District Collector, R.R.District, Lakadikapul, Hyderabad and others .....RESPONDENT(S) THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No: 3006 of 2010 ORDER: Petitioners who are the plaintiffs filed this revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to assail the correctness of the order rejecting the application purported to have been filed by them under Rules 9 and 18 of Order XXVI of C.P.C. read with Section 151 of C.P.C. with a prayer to re-entrust the warrant to some other Advocate for execution of the same afresh. Heard the learned counsel for petitioners and the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration for respondents. Perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that in the earlier round of litigation, this Court, by order dated 25.11.2009 passed in C.R.P.No.5076 of 2009 has directed to conclude the survey which was entrusted to the Advocate Commissioner. Relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: “The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, is directed to issue a notice to the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the matter calling upon him either to submit his report or return his warrant, in case he is unable to execute the warrant, immediately, within a period of two weeks. Based on such report/return of warrant, the learned Judge shall proceed further in the matter, without any further delay.” As per the report purported to have been submitted by the Advocate Commissioners filed along with the material papers placed before this Court, it appears that though the Advocate Commissioners have fixed a schedule i.e. from 21.02.2009 to 23.02.2009 for a continuous period of three days for execution of the warrant of commission, at the request of the Revenue Divisional Officer and with the consent of all the concerned, they have postponed the execution of warrant of commission. It appears that while they are under the process of execution of the warrant of commission, the trial Court has asked the Advocate Commissioners to return the warrant as they are unable to complete its execution within the given period of two weeks which was the time fixed by this Court through order dated 25.11.2009 passed in C.R.P.No.5076 of 2009. It is understood that the trial Court failed to understand the purpose of the order passed therein. This Court directed to complete the process of the execution of warrant expeditiously so as to enable the trial Court to decide the issue without any further delay. But, the trial Court misunderstood and directed the Advocate Commissioners to return the warrant even before its execution which caused unnecessary delay in further proceedings and filing of the present revision. Therefore, after hearing the learned counsel for both sides, as it is stated that the execution of warrant of commission is at the fag end and it requires only three days time for its completion, I feel it appropriate to direct the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar, Hyderabad, to fix a date to complete the warrant of commission, within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, and direct the Advocate Commissioners to execute the warrant of commission by that date and file the report. Both the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs and defendants before the trial Court shall make themselves available during execution of the warrant of commission and shall cooperate for its execution without taking any further time. If, for any reason, by the date fixed by the trial Court, the Advocate Commissioners fail to submit the report the trial Court shall proceed with the matter without waiting for the report of the Advocate Commissioners. With the above observations, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ N.V.RAMANA, J. 31ST August 2010 CVRK Note: Office to issue copy by tomorrow. B/o CVRK