##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT: HYDERABAD

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN CIVIL REVISION PETI TI ON No.1116 OF 2026

Date:17-04-2026

Between Smt. Singam Mangamma (died )

per legal representatives and others …Petitioners and

Smt. G.Aruna Padma and others ….Respondents

T his Court passed the following

ORDER

Heard Sri M.V.Raj Kumar Gabriel, learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri Prabhakar Peri, learned counsel appearing for 2^nd respondent and Sri Akash, learned counsel representing Sri Vadeendra Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1

and 3.

2. It is mentioned in the cause title of the revision that

respondent Nos.4 to 12 are not necessary parties.

2

3. The Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the

CPC, assailing the order dated 17.03.2026 passed in E.P.No.379 of 2023 by the I Additional District & Sessions Judge – cum – Additional

Family Court Judge, Medchal – Malkajgiri District at Kushaiguda.

4. Respondent Nos.1 to 3/ D.Hrs. had filed a suit in O.S.No.398

of 2009 against the petitioners herein/J.Drs. and others for specific performance of agreement of sale and possession. The suit was decreed on 03.07.2019. D.Hrs. filed an execution petition vide E.P.No.379 of 2023 for execution of the said decree. Vide order dated 17.03.2026, learned executing Court allowed the said EP, issued warrant for delivery of possession of the EP schedule property.

Challenging the said order, the petitioners filed the present revision.

5. It is the specific contention of the petitioners/J.Drs. that there

was discrepancy with regard to the boundaries of the suit schedule property and E.P. schedule property with regard to northern and western boundaries. The northern and western boundaries in the E.P. schedule property are mentioned as 30’ road towards north and 30’ road towards west. The same are contrary to the procedure laid down

3

under law and by virtue of the same, the D.Hrs. are trying to occupy 0.14.26 guntas of land belongs to the petitioners. Without considering the said aspects, learned executing Court allowed the aforesaid E.P. vide impugned order dated 17.03.2026 and appointed

Smt.T.Chaitanya, as Advocate-Commissioner.

6. Whereas, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to

3/D.Hrs. would contend that the petitioners executed two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.8037 dated 0808.2019 and 8039 of 2022 dated 28.02.2020 wherein northern and western boundaries are mentioned as 30’ road. The petitioners herein have already taken an objection of the said boundaries. The Executing Court considered the

same and passed impugned order. There is no error in it.

7. During the course of hearing, it is brought to the notice of

this Court that the learned Advocate Commissioner did not serve any notice to the petitioners herein pursuant to the execution of the warrant. Therefore, the petitioners have sent objections through

whatsapp, but Advocate-Commissioner did not consider the same.

4

8. In the light of the same, this revision is disposed of granting

liberty to the petitioners herein/J.Drs. to submit written objections to the learned Advocate-Commissioner and she shall consider the same. Learned Advocate Commissioner shall also consider the two registered sale deeds bearing document Nos.8037 dated 08.08.2019 and 8039 of 2022 dated 28.02.2020 and she shall schedule property in decree and E.P. schedule property before executing warrant. Liberty is also granted to the respondents to submit objections, if any, to the learned Advocate Commissioner and it is for her to consider the same.

However, there is no order as to costs.

Consequently, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in the revision shall stand closed.

____________________

K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:17.04.2 026.

Note: Issue CC forthwith.

b/o. vvr