THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 1525 of 2007 Date of order: 24.6.2010 Between: Chodey Lalamma …Petitioner and Nagabathula Brahmanandarao @ Babulu and others ..Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR C.R.P. NO. 1525 of 2007 ORDER: Heard both sides. The respondents 1 to 3 herein filed a claim petition-EA No. 914 of 2004 in EP No. 550 of 1998 in OS No. 62 of 1976 on the file of the I-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada. In the said claim petition, the respondents 1 to 3 herein contended that while executing the decree in the suit, their property was also delivered to the decree holder, though they are no way concerned nor bound by the decree. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner states that the respondents 1 to 3 herein had led evidence in the said claim petition and in order to establish that their property was delivered by Ameen of the court while executing the decree, they filed EA No. 2461 of 2006 for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to note down the physical features of the boundaries of their property delivered by the Court Ameen to the decree holder. The said application was allowed by the executing court under the impugned order dated 8.2.2007. Aggrieved thereby, the revision petitioner who is decree holder has filed the present revision. By order dated 30.3.2007, this Court admitted the revision and granted interim suspension of the impugned order and the said interim order continues to operate. The application of the respondents 1 to 3 herein for appointment of advocate-commissioner, though innocuously styled for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the boundaries of their property, in reality, seeks to establish and produce evidence in support of their claim petition. It is well settled that the process of appointing advocate-commissioner cannot be used for the purpose of collecting evidence for a party. The suit schedule property has already been delivered by the Court Ameen to the decree holder and as such only to ascertain the boundaries of the property delivered to the decree holder, it was unnecessary to use the process of appointing advocate-commissioner. Since the impugned order amounts to permitting collection of evidence for a party, this Court had suspended the impugned order. After hearing both the learned counsel, I am of the view that though the respondents 1 to 3 herein have already led evidence in support of their claim petition, I deem it appropriate to grant them liberty to lead further evidence, if they so desire and claim petition shall thereafter be decided in accordance with law. The order of the executing court appointing advocate commissioner as prayed for by the respondents 1 to 3 herein is clearly misconceived and liable to be set aside. The revision petition is accordingly allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the executing court shall hear both sides and decide the claim petition in accordance with law, after giving opportunity to the parties to lead further evidence, if any. No costs. _________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J Dt. 24.6.2010 KR