A court is required to ensure proper execution of decrees by gathering necessary property details and can appoint a Commissioner for such purposes.

ORDER

The decree holder is the revision petitioner, aggrieved by the dismissal of her application, seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for noting down the physical features of the suit scheduled property and collecting details about the tenants, portions occupied by the tenants, details of rents and advance paid by them and also to obtain copies of the rental agreements and file a report. The said application was resisted by the judgment debtors and the Executing Court by order dated 17.10.2025, dismissed the said Application, challenging the said order, the decree holder is before this Court by way of the present revision petition.

2. I have heard Mr.T.Sundar Rajan, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Mrs.D.Prasanna, learned counsel appearing for the judgment debtors.

3. Mr.Sundar Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would state that the petitioner had filed the Execution Petition under Order XXVI, Rule 9 CPC and despite the parties leading evidence, there is no reliable information that has come forth with regard to the physical features of the property, as well as the income that is accruing to the judgment debtors from the various portions. He would further state that the third judgment debtor has also committed willful disobedience and thereby, contempt and unless the present physical features are noted, the Court will not be in a position to adjudicate upon the complaint of the petitioner as to whether the third judgment debtor has indeed violated the decree. Mr.Sundar Rajan, learned counsel would further state that the Executing Court has a duty to ensure that the decree is executed to its full satisfaction and in such process, the Executing Court was certainly entitled to appoint a Commissioner for the stated purposes.

4. Per contra, Mrs.D.Prasanna, learned counsel for the respondents/judgment debtors, would state that excepting some portions, the remaining portions are occupied only by family members who are also aged, and therefore, the question of requiring any details regarding payment of rents does not arise. She would further state that the petitioner cannot fish for evidence by seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to gather details for his case and it is the duty of the petitioner to establish the same. She would therefore state that the Executing court has rightly dismissed the application for appointment of a commissioner. In fact, pending the revision, the parties attempted to settle the disputes amicably, and the respondents also came forward to file an affidavit dated 23.02.2026 stating that they have no objection for the decree holder to collect rents from the tenants of Door.No.6 as well as Schedule B property. In the affidavit, it has been contended that the property in Door.Nos.4 and 5 belongs to the 1^st respondent / 2^nd judgment debtor absolutely and she and her daughter are residing there and utilizing the rental income to meet their daily as well as medical expenses.

5. In the affidavit, it is further stated that she receives very meager rent, which is not even sufficient to eke out a livelihood. However, the said offer was not acceptable to the revision petitioner, since according to Mr.Sundar Rajan, the decree has been passed in respect of all items of property and when the decree has become final, it is not open to the 2^nd judgment debtor to continue to contend that she is the absolute owner of the property. Mr.Sundar Rajan would, however, state that if at least the respondents were agreeable to the petitioner receiving rents from all the properties, then he may not insist on the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The respondents are not willing to suc