THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3349 of 2025

ORDER:

This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioners-DHrs.,

aggrieved by the docket order dated 06.08.2025 passed in E.A.No.23 of 2025 in E.P.No.51 of 2014 in I.A.No.998 of 1999 in

O.S.No.232 of 1986 by the learned Senior Civil Judge at Nirmal.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners filed an execution application vide E.A. No.23 of 2025 in E.P.No.51 of 2014 seeking a direction to the Bailiff of the Junior Civil Judge, Bhainsa, to deliver possession of the property as per the measurements in the Advocate Commissioner’s Report appended to the final decree. The original suit was filed for partition and separate possession of joint family properties located in Hyderabad, Bhainsa, and Nanded. Following the preliminary decree, I.A. No. 98 of 1999 was filed, and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to divide the suit schedule properties. The Commissioner inspected the lands, prepared maps showing the division with measurements, and submitted his report, which was annexed to the final decree. The Court passed orders for delivery of possession, and the warrant was entrusted to the Bailiff. Upon receiving the warrant, the Bailiff approached the Tahsildar, Bhainsa, to depute a Mandal Surveyor

for identifying land in Sy.No.354 (Item No. 4 of the suit schedule). Due to urbanization, the Mandal Surveyor expressed his inability to demarcate the land and referred the matter to the R.D.O., Nirmal. The Deputy Inspector of Survey also expressed his inability and issued a memo accordingly. The decree holders stated they are ready to identify the property based on the Commissioner’s map and prayed the Court to consider the application. The contesting respondents filed a counter, stating that the execution petition is not maintainable in law or on facts and that since the preliminary decree, there has been a dispute regarding the identity of the property, and the Commissioner’s report was based on assumptions without any proper survey or technical methodology and prayed the Court to dismiss the application.

3. Upon hearing both sides, the trial Court observed that multiple structures exist on the land in Sy.No.354 and the warrant for delivery of possession pertains to 900 square yards within this survey number. However, due to the presence of structures, the warrant cannot be executed unless the property is first identified and the structures are removed. The boundaries mentioned in the E.P. schedule show Sy.No.354 on three sides and a post office road on the eastern side, but the exact location of the 900 square yards on the ground remains unclear whether to the left or right of the northern boundary. Therefore, the entire extent of Sy.No.354, measuring Ac.1.08 gts., must be surveyed and demarcated to identify the share of the petitioner share and those of other defendants. Without such identification, isolating the 900 square yards is not feasible. Hence, the contention of the petitioners that the property can be identified solely at the instance of the decree holders is untenable and that the boundaries mentioned in the execution petition for 900 square yards of land correspond to the boundaries of 3,630 square yards allotted to the respondents under the final decree. Therefore, the petitioners are seeking possession of property based on boundaries assigned to the respondents. In view of this, the request made by the petitioners cannot be considered and the trial Court dismissed the execution application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition has been filed.

4. Heard Sri G. Ramakrishna, learned counsel for the petitioners.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the executing Court ought to have undertaken the exercise of locating and identifying the property, particularly the portion belonging to the petitioners, and handed over the same through due process of law and that the Court failed to consider the averm