IMPORTANT POINT
Court correctly exercised jurisdiction to enable decree holder to get fruits of decree.

A.V. Sesha Sai, J.—The issue in the present revisions is a typical example for the famous saying vows or difficulties of an Indian Decree holder start from the date of decree. Since these two revisions arise out of same execution proceedings and are inter-related, this Court deems it apt and appropriate to dispose of these two cases by way of this common order.

2. The judgment debtor in E.P.No.2 of 2011 in O.S.No.15 of 2008 is the petitioner in these revisions. C.R.P.No.2982 of 2014 is filed against the order, dated 13-08-2014 and C.R.P.(SR).No.23826 of 2014 is filed against the order, dated 31.10.2013.

3. Heard Sri C.Ramesh Sagar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G. Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available before this Court.

4. The respondent herein instituted O.S.No.15 of 2008, on the file of the Court of the District Judge, Karimnagar against the petitioner herein for specific performance of agreement of sale, dated 5.3.2007 in respect of the lands, admeasuring Ac.2-16 gts., in Sy.No.115/A and Ac.4-00 gts., in Sy.No.161/B of Bhoopalapatnam village, Choppadandi Revenue Mandal, Karimnagar District. The learned Judge decreed the said suit on 31-03-2010. Thereafter, the decree holder filed E.P.No.2 of 2011 for enforcement of the decree on 9.11.2010. A.S.No.2 of 2011 filed by the defendants/petitioners herein against the decree in O.S.No.15 of 2008 before this Court was dismissed on 15.4.2013. The decree holder/respondent herein filed E.A.No.62 of 2013 under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to identify the land under E.P. with survey numbers and village map in consonance with the boundary map of E.P. Schedule with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor of Choppadandi Tahsildar Office. By way of an order, dated 31.12.2013 Commissioner was appointed and the same is the subject matter of challenge in C.R.P.(SR) No.23826 of 2014. The Commissioner so appointed filed a report on 10.6.2014 and by way of an order, dated 13.8.2014 the learned Prl. District Judge accepted the said report and the said order is under challenge in C.R.P.No.2982 of 2014.

5. The contentions and submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are:

1. Orders under challenge in these revisions are erroneous, contrary to law and are opposed to the provisions of Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

2. The Executing Court has no power to appoint an Advocate Commissioner under Order 26, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure in execution proceedings and as such, the orders, appointing Advocate Commissioner are totally without jurisdiction.

3. The Executing Court grossly erred in appointing the Advocate Commissioner for localizing the property for the purpose of execution and the E.P. Court cannot travel beyond the scope of decree and the same is impermissible.

4. Property which is neither covered by the agreement nor the plaint schedule property nor the decree cannot be delivered to the decree holder by appointing Advocate Commissioner.

5. The decree holder ought to have got amended the plaint schedule and the decree before initiating the Executing Proceedings.

6. The Court below virtually permitted the decree holder to adduce evidence afresh, which is impermissible.

In support of this submissions and contentions, learned counsel heavily placed reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Vadlamani Suryanarayana Murthy v. Saripalli Balakameswari and others, 2007(2) ALT 636.

(ii) Collector of Customs, Calcutta v East India Commercial Co. Ltd, Calcutta and others, AIR 1963 SC 1124

(iii) P. Moosa Kutty v Unknown, AIR 1953 Madras 717

6. Submissions/contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent are:

1. Orders passed by the Court below are in accordance with law and there is no illegality nor any material infirmity nor irregularity in the impugned orders, as such the present revisions are not maintainable and the petitioner is not entitled fo