M.T. LINGAIAH Vs. MADIVALARA R. JANAKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 9.4.2014, passed in Execution case No. 32/2012.

(2.) THE petitioner herein is the judgment -debtor in O.S. No. 138/2001. In respect of the decree granted in favour of respondent herein in the said suit, the execution petition has been filed. The delivery warrant had been issued on the earlier occasion but had been returned by the Process Nazar by making endorsement that it is difficult to execute without proper identification of the property. Subsequent thereto, the Executing Court has passed the order impugned herein dated 9.4.2014. The order directs issue of fresh delivery warrant and the Process Nazar is permitted to take assistance of the surveyor only to ensure that the warrant is executed as per the decree. The judgment -debtor claiming to be aggrieved by such order is before this Court.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner refers to delivery warrant which had been issued on the earlier occasion and endorsement that had been made by the Process Nazar. A perusal of the same, no doubt, indicates that Process Nazar has made endorsement that on the spot, he was unable to identify the property for the purpose of delivering possession. In fact, he has indicated that it would be necessary to have a surveyor to earmark that portion. The Court below while taking note of the same, has passed a detailed order dated 9.4.2014.