Petitioner filed O.S.No.55 of 1990, in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Vizianagaram, against the respondents, for the relief of recovery of possession, to an extent of 6 inches x 14 feet of land, and for mandatory injunction for removal of the slabs in 1st and 2nd floors, with the same measurement; overlapping into the property of the petitioner. The suit was decreed ex parte on 28-4-1995. After the decree became final, the petitioner filed E.P.No.65 of 2002.

Since there was some resistance by the respondents he filed EA NO.278 of 2002, for removal of obstruction. At that stage, the respondents field E.A.No.501 of 2003, with a prayer to appoint a Commissioner, to note the physical features, on the site. It was opposed by the petitioner, and the executing Court allowed the EA, through its order dated 12-9-2003. Hence, this C.R.P.

2. Sri K.S.R. Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the provisions of Order XXVI C.P.C. do not apply to the 8xecution proceedings, and places reliance upon a judgment of this Court in B. Narasappa v. B. Govindappa. He contends that even otherwise, there was no basis for appointment of Commissioner and such a step would amoun