THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2859 of 2010 Date:14th February, 2011 Between: P.Ramulu ..... Petitioner/JDr AND P.Shankaramma .....Respondent/DHr *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2859 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 17.06.2010, passed in E.P.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge over-ruled the objections of the judgment debtor and ordered for his detention for a period of one month for realization of the suit costs and for delivery of the possession of the suit schedule land. 2. The petitioner is the judgment debtor and the respondent is the decree holder in E.P.No.6 of 2008 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. The decree holder filed E.P. for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and for recovery of the suit costs of Rs.5,668/-. The judgment debtor filed counter raising various objections for delivery of the property. On behalf of the judgment debtor No.2, he got himself examined as RW.1 and examined one Ponnakanti Krishnaiah as RW.1 and marked 8 documents as Exs.R.1 to R8. The Executing Court, on considering the evidence brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, over-ruled the objections of the judgment debtor and ordered for delivery of possession of the suit schedule property and also arrest and detention of the judgment debtor for a period of one month for realization of the suit costs, by order dated 17.06.2010. Hence, this revision by the judgment debtor. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/judgment debtor and learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/judgment debtor submits that the warrant entrusted to the Amin is returned for want of identification of the E.P. schedule property land and in which case, delivery of possession does not arise. A further submission has been made that the judgment debtor needs four weeks time to pay the suit costs. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent/decree holder submits that the executing Court cannot go beyond the decree and the decree holder is to be put in possession of the E.P. schedule property as per the decree dated 06.02.2006 passed in O.S.No.89 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy. 6. The respondent is the decree holder in E.P.No.6 of 2008. The decree is passed in her favour directing the defendants to vacate the suit schedule property and put the plaintiff in possession. The decree granted in O.S.No.89 of 2000 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, reads as hereunder: “This suit is coming before me for final disposal on 9.6.2006 in the presence of Sri G.Dharma Reddy, Advocate for plaintiff and Sri B.Venkateswar Reddy, Advocate for defendant No.1 and Sri P.Sriram Rao and P.Manmohan Rao, Advocates for defendant No.2, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court doth order and decree as follows: 1. That the plaintiff is declared as owner and possessor and entitled to evict the defendants from the Suit Schedule Plot; 2. That the defendants are restrained perpetually from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plot. 3. That the defendant No.2 do pay a sum of costs of Rs.2,850/- towards costs of the suit; 4. That the suit of the plaintiff be and hereby dismissed against D1.” E.P. schedule and the suit schedule are one and the same in which case, it is impermissible for the judgment debtor to contend that the E.P. schedule property cannot be identified for putting the decree holder in possession of the same. The Executing Court is justified in over-ruling the objections raised by the judgment debtor. I do not see any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned in the revision. However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/judgment debtor with regard to grant of some time to the petitioner/judgment debtor for payment of the suit costs, I am inclined to grant three weeks time. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of granting three weeks time to the petitioner/judgment debtor to pay the suit costs, failing which, the arrest warrant issued by the executing Court holds good. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:14th February, 2011. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.2859 of 2010 Date:14th February, 2011