ORDER:-

The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure challenging the order dated 31.10.2018 in E.A.No.393 of 2018 in E.P.No.23 of 2012 in O.S.No.93 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, rejecting the application filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to measure the schedule property.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present case are: The petitioner herein is JDR in E.P. It is represented that the DHR filed E.P seeking execution of the Decree. The petitioner contends that after filing of the Vakalat he could not file the counter affidavit, therefore he was set exparte. Seeking set aside of the exparte order, it is stated that the petitioner had filed an application under Order XXI Rule 106 of C.P.C. The said application was dismissed as no bonafide reasons were shown for his non appearance. Thereafter the petitioner filed a revision petition in C.R.P.No.5335 of 2018, seeking stay of execution proceedings. After the dismissal of revision petition, E.P was executed. It is stated that when the petitioner-JDR was arrested and brought before the court, he filed a Memo dated 05.06.2018, stating that he would compromise in the matter, and has no objection to survey the land in Ac.2.76 cents in R.S.No.17/3 and it is stated that on the basis of the said Memo, the JDR was released. Thereafter, on an application filed by the DHR, contending that the JDR did not approach the DHR to compromise the case, as promised, and so once again arrest warrant was issued against the JDR. At the said stage, the JDR files another application seeking appointment of an advocate commissioner, to note down the physical features of the E.P schedule property. The learned Judge dismissed the said application, stating that the JDR has no locus standi to file the present petition. Hence the present Civil Revision Petition.

3. Heard Sri Yallabandi Ramatirtha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Panduri Ramam, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not concerned with the E.P Schedule land and the question whether he had interfered with the possession of the DHR would not arise and sought for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the revision petition is not maintainable against the order impugned. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, referring to the provisions of Section 115(b)&(c) of C.P.C., contends that the revision petition is maintainable.

6. Considered the rival submissions. After disposal of the E.P, on a Memo filed by the JDR, the learned Judge taking into consideration the contents of the Memo, released the JDR on execution of the Bond. The relief sought by the DHR in the E.P was as follows:

“ Therefore I pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to execute and enforce the decree of this Hon’ble Court against JDR and his men by detection the JDR and his me in civil prison and by attach their property and appoint an advocate-commissioner or direct the field assistant of this honourable court for restoration of the boundary bund of my and JDR and his men and with help of surveyor according to order XXI Rule 32 1 to 5 C.P.C”

7. The learned Judge vide his order dated 20.07.2018, in the EP, directed arrest of the JDR. The relief sought by the DHR in E.P was for arrest of the JDR as well as appointment of an Advocate Commissioner or a Field Assistant of the Court, to restore the boundary between the DHR and JDR, with the help of a surveyor. However, as noticed from the proceedings, the second portion of the relief sought in the E.P i.e., appointment of an advocate commissioner etc., was not adjudicated, except adjudicating on the issue of arrest and detention of the JDR. The second part of the relief sought in the E.P remained un-adjudicated. The JDR, through the subject application, on oath, had come forward and stated that he wo