1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order and decree in E.P.No.71 of 2004 in O.S.No.23 of 1992 dated 28.01.2011, wherein the Court below ordered delivery of possession by 14.02.2011 in respect of the property bearing door No.17/241 in Yemmiganur with boundaries i.e., East: Hut bearing door No.17/240 of Jabbar Sab, West: House bearing No.17/242 belongs to decree holder, North: Hut bearing No.17/241 then CC road; South: Rastha.

2. Heard Sri. K.V. Raghuveer and Sri. B.Purusotham Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri. Butta Vijay Bhasker, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.

3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the decree holder himself could not identify the schedule property as per the decree, as such, the Court below should not have allowed the decree holder to amend the plaint schedule property in execution proceedings. The decree holder has changed boundaries of the schedule property from time to time and the boundaries mentioned in the decree, advocate commissioners report and EP proceedings are totally different. He would further contend that unless judgment of Court below is suitably corrected, the decree holder cannot alter the decree and that the decree holder has to approach the Court which passed decree with a petition to make appropriate corrections in judgment as also in decree to enable him to realize the fruits of decree passed in his favour. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Yempalla Ramaiah v. Pallamparthi Krishna Reddy and others (2007 (1) ALD 367). He would further contend that even if the decree holder files an application under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC, the executing Court cannot go behind decree and amend the same. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in Bai Shakriben (dead) by Natwar Melsingh and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 533) and Deepa Bhargava and another v. Mahesh Bhargava and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 294).

4. Learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder contended that the Court below has rightly directed delivery of possession of property as the boundaries mentioned in the warrant in E.A.No.68 of 2008 are tallying with the boundaries mentioned in the Commissioners report. He would further contend that the decree holder has not changed boundaries of the schedule property.

5. As is well known, troubles of decree holders start when they proceed to execute the decree. I do not find any legal principle that has been adverted to by the executing Court in ordering delivery of property, with different boundaries other than mentioned in the original decree, in execution petition. The decision of the executing Court is wholly without jurisdiction. This revision petition arising out of execution proceedings, has a checkered history, wherein the original suit was filed in the year 1992 i.e., OS No.23 of 1992. After the same is decreed on 14.07.1997, the defendants preferred AS No.41 of 1997, which was also dismissed on 06.02.2004 on the file of Senior Civil Judges Court, Adoni. Aggrieved by the decree in first appeal i.e., AS No.41 of 1997, the judgment debtors preferred SA No.1526 of 2005, which was also dismissed on 13.12.2005. By virtue of which, the decree in OS No.23 of 1992 dated 14.07.1997 has attained finality.

6. It is pertinent to note that during pendency of first appeal, the decree holder filed E.P.No.71 of 2004, wherein the judgment debtor filed E.A.No.47 of 2006 under Section 47 and 151 of CPC praying to dismiss the execution petition as non executable and nullity, which was disposed of on 26.06.2006. Aggrieved by the same, the judgment debtors/revision petitioners filed C.R.P.No.5182 of 2006. Though this Court granted interim stay, but before the same was communicated to the executing Court, the EP No.71 of 2004 itself was disposed of on 30.10.2006. Later, on