ORDER :

This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 09.04.2018 passed in EPSR No.2861 of 2017 in LAC No.01 of 2013 in O.S.No.225 of 2010 on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu, seeking intervention of this Court to direct the execution Court to register the said execution petition and take it on file.

2. The suit in O.S.No.225 of 2010 was filed on the file of the Court of Junior Civil Judge, Jammalamadugu for permanent injunction against the defendant and her men etc., from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property.

3. Thereafter, the plaintiff and defendant entered into compromise before the Mandal Legal Services Committee of Jammalamadugu on 16.02.2013 and as such an award was passed as follows:

“Both parties are called present and their respective learned advocates present. Both parties filed a compromise memo by mentioning the terms of compromise. The terms of compromise are as follows:

The plaintiff agreeing compromise memo that is not claiming any rights in respect of suit schedule property either in the suit site sheds or electrical connection fixed in the survey no.430/1B and that the defendant agreed that she is accepting the final report filed in C.F.R.No.320/12 on the file of the JFCM Court, Jammalamadugu.

In view of the compromise and submission of the both parties and at the instance of the Lok-Adalath members, the compromise is recorded and the case is disposed of as per the terms of compromise. Accordingly the award is passed and plaintiff is entitled for refund of the court fee amount.

Schedule:

The site along with sheds situated in Kadapa district, Jammalamadugu sub-district at Jammalamadugu in S.No.430/1B in an extent of Ac.0.15 cents is bounded by

4. For the execution of the same, the defendant initially filed E.P.No.62 of 2013, but the same was dismissed on 27.11.2017 as not pressed. The defendant again filed the execution petition vide EPSR No.2861 of 2017 as per Order 21, Rule 35 CPC to remove the respondent/plaintiff from the schedule property and hand over the possession of the same to the petitioner/defendant, as per the award in LAC No.01 of 2013. The property described in the E.P. schedule is as follows:

Schedule:

The site along with sheds situated in Kadapa District Jammalamadugu Sub District Municipal area (limits) survey No.430/1B Ac.0-15 cents is bounded by :

5. The petitioner/defendant filed an affidavit along with the execution petition, stating that as per the award, forest land is on the western side of the property, but presently since the public constructed houses on the west of the EP schedule property, the boundary is noted as ‘forest land continuation and at present site and houses’; and similarly, since presently the municipality laid CC road on the south, the boundary in EP schedule is noted as ‘land of Nelanuthala people, at present municipal road’. It is further stated in the affidavit that one or two people raised two tin sheet sheds and corridors and placed bolders, apart from keeping hay stocks in the EP schedule property. Thus, the defendant wanted execution of the award by handing over the possession of the EP schedule property to the defendant.

6. The execution Court returned the petition on 22.12.2017 with the first objection “the boundaries shown in the award and petition are not tallied each other. It should be clarified.” The objection was answered on 30.12.2017 stating that the old and new boundaries are shown in the petition.

7. Again the execution petition