THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.157 OF 2010 DATED:30.03.2011 Between: Poonamali Kameswaramma. .... PETITIONER And Tanneru Eswaraiah. .... RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 23.12.2009, in I.A.No.924 of 2008 in O.S.No.1154 of 2004 on the file of the learned III Additional Junior Civil Judge, Nellore, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein under Order XX Rule 12, Order XXVI Rule 9 r/w Section 151 CPC to appoint an advocate-Commissioner, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Petitioner herein filed O.S.No.1154 of 2004 against the respondent for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and mesne profits in respect of the plaint schedule property of 0.25 cents out of Ac.6.04 cents in Sy.No.76B of Indukurpet village. The trial Court decreed the suit on 20.02.2008 granting preliminary decree as follows: a) that the plaintiff is hereby declared as the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property; b) that the defendant shall deliver vacant possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff within three months from this day (i.e. on or before 19.05.2008) c) that the defendant do also pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.2755/- towards costs of the suit and do bear his own costs of Rs.1022/- d) that the plaintiff is at liberty to file a separate application for ascertaining the mesne profits over the plaint schedule property from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of possession of the same to the plaintiff. 4. Thereafter, petitioner filed the present I.A.No.924 of 2008 seeking appointment of advocate-Commissioner to measure the plaint schedule land, fixing up the boundary ridges and deliver vacant possession to the petitioner and also to enquire into the future mesne profits from the date of the suit till the date of possession. Respondent opposed the same. The trial Court by impugned order dismissed the said application. Hence, the present Civil Revision Petition by the petitioner-decree-holder. 5. As seen from the decree granted by the trial Court, the title of the petitioner as absolute owner of the plaint schedule land was declared and the defendant was directed to deliver vacant possession of the schedule property to the plaintiff within three months. Further, plaintiff was at liberty to file a separate application for ascertaining the mesne profits from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of possession. The proper course for the petitioner would be to file an Execution Petition for execution of the decree in the event of the defendant not complying with the same and not delivering vacant possession before the expiry of three months on 19.05.2008. The question of seeking appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to measure the land fixing up the boundaries and deliver vacant possession does not arise. Petitioner is therefore at liberty to file an Execution Petition for execution of the decree. Similarly, petitioner is also at liberty to file a separate application for ascertaining the mesne profits over the plaint schedule property from the date of filing of the suit till the date of delivery of possession. 6. Accordingly, Civil Revision Petition is disposed of with the liberty as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 30th March, 2011. Tsy