IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1098 of 2010 Between: Koppisetty Suryakantham. … Petitioner And Surampudi China Subbarao and others. … Respondents This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 1098 OF 2010 ORDER:- The Judgment Debtor is in revision against the orders of I Additional Junior Civil Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada passed in E.P.No.60 of 2009 in O.S.No.472 of 1997, dated 16.02.2010. The respondents/decree holders obtained a decree against the petitioner/judgment debtor in O.S.No.472 of 1997 for removing the encroachments/constructions in the plaint schedule property and to deliver the same to them. On decreeing the suit, the petitioner unsuccessfully challenged the same in A.S.No.188 of 2004 on the file of VII Additional District Judge, Kakinada, who dismissed the appeal on 18.12.2006. On dismissal of the same, the decree holders filed the above E.P., under Order XXI Rules 22 and 35 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for brevity, “CPC”) for delivery of the plaint schedule property, in which the petitioner filed a counter contending that in the absence of measurements mentioned in the plaint plan, unless the commissioner is appointed, it is not possible to identify the property which is under encroachment. Further, the decree does not indicate the specific measurements of the property to be delivered and, therefore, the delivery cannot be ordered. The executing court by the impugned order held that as per the decree, the plaintiffs are entitled to take delivery of the schedule property i.e., item No.2 encroached portion of the defendant/judgment debtor with measurements i.e., on the East: remaining property of the plaintiffs 45 feet; South: Panchayat road 27 feet; West: Property of the defendant 48 feet; and North: 19 feet 6 inches in an area of 121 square yards. Since the specific measurements were already given in the plaint schedule property and the plan appended to the decree also specifies the same measurements, the objection was not tenable and accordingly, issued notice made absolute directing to issue delivery warrant on payment of batta. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the plaint, though the measurements were allegedly given in rectangular piece in the plaint plan, no specific measurements were shown and hence the Court ought to have appointed a commissioner in exercise of suo motu power under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC for making local inspection. Without appointing the commissioner and without measurements and identification of the property, it is difficult to deliver the property to the decree holder which is in occupation and, therefore, the E.P. cannot be entertained. I see no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that when the decree specifies the area with specific measurements abutting the defendant’s property, it can always be executed with the said boundaries. In view of the same, no illegality or irregularity is discernable with the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. If the warrant issued to the bailiff for execution of the decree is not tallying with the measurements, it is always open for the petitioner to raise objection before the bailiff who would execute the warrant for delivery of possession. No costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 26th March 2010 Lmv