PULIME SWAMY NAIDU Vs. DENDULURI MANIKYAMBHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment debtors in OS No. 112 of 1997 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Alamuru, filed this civil revision petition under Section 115 CPC, aggrieved of the order dated 10.4.2013 passed in EA No. 360 of 2012 in EP No. 79 of 2010, in the said suit. The respondents herein filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property - Ac.0.90 cents covered by RS No. 503/6 of Alamuru Village, Kapileswarapuram Mandal, East Godavari District. In the plaint schedule, the said property was described by giving the boundaries on all the four sides. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondents by judgment and decree dated 9.11.2006. The same was confirmed in first appeal vide AS No. 3 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Ramachandrapuram and further confirmed by this Court in view of dismissal of SA No. 646 of 2010, filed by the petitioners herein, by judgment dated 30.7.2010. The respondents, in execution of the decree, filed EP No. 79 of 2010 for delivery of the E.P. schedule property. Delivery warrant was issued and when Court Field Assistant visited the E.P. schedule property, there was an objection by a person claiming tenancy over the said property. Thereafter, the said person filed A.T.C. before the Tenancy Court and obtained interim orders, but the same were vacated at the instance of the respondents herein. When the Court Field Assistant could not execute the decree as he was unable to localize and identify the E.P. schedule property and returned the warrant, the trial Court passed orders permitting the Court Field Assistant to take aid of the Mandal Surveyor for execution of the warrant Again, the Court Field Assistant visited the E.P. schedule property on 7.4.2012 along with the Mandal Surveyor, who identified the E.P. schedule property with boundaries, but at that stage there was a protest on the ground that there is a cultivating tenant thereon. Even at that stage, in his report, the Court Field Assistant has endorsed that there was brick kiln in the E.P. schedule property.

(2.) There was further resistance for execution of the decree on the ground that brick kiln is located in RS No. 503/7, but not RS No. 503/6. On the application filed by the respondents-decree holders, the impugned order is passed directing the Court Field Assistant to remove all the obstructions including the brick kiln in the E.P. schedule property with the aid of police and deliver the property to the respondents-decree holders. Aggrieved of the same, this civil revision petition is filed.

(3.) Heard Sri P. Satya Prasad, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri J. Sreenivasa Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents.