Heard Sri N.Vidya Prasad the learned Counsel representing N. Ravi Prasad and Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents.

2. Rev.C.M.A.M.P.No.248/2009 is filed praying for the relief to review the order dt.20-10-2008 made in C.M.A.No.335/2008 by this Court.

3. Sri Vidya Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the review petitioners had taken this Court through the findings recorded in C.M.A.No.335/2008 by this Court and would maintain that entrusting the delivery warrant with instructions to the Court Officer to deliver the suit schedule property after satisfying with the boundaries and the identity of the property cannot be sustained and thus the disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal itself is not in accordance with law. The learned Counsel had taken this Court through the grounds raised in elaboration and would maintain that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Rev.C.M.A.M.P., to be allowed. The Counsel also relied on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.

4. On the contrary, Sri Rathangapani Reddy, the learned Counsel representing the contesting respondents had taken this Court through the historica