CHAKKA RANGA RAO Vs. MOLLA MUSTARI BANU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the respondent for declaration of his title to the portion shown as I.J.K.L.M.N.O.P. in the plan annexed to the plaint and for recovery of possession of that portion from the revision petitioner was decreed. When the respondent filed a petition for execution of that decree it was resisted by the revision petitioner. It is stated that when the respondent filed an application for appointment of an advocate commissionerfor delivery of the property in terms of the decree, the revision petitioner opposed the said petition and so the said petition was dismissed. Thereafter, revision petitioner filed a petition seeking appointment of a commissioner to note the physical features and to identify the property and the portion shown as I.J.K.L.M.N.O.P. in the plaint plan and to note other physical features, which was dismissed by the order under revision.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that since the portion allegedly encroached by the revision petitioner cannot be ascertained from the plaint plan for want of measurements, and since the respondent, under the guise of executing the decree, is trying to demolish the property belonging to revision petitioner, the Court below ought to have appointed a commissionerand erred in observing thatthe provisions of Order 26 CPC do not apply to execution proceedings.

(3.) There is no representation on behalf of the respondent, though the matter is posted for hearing on number of occasions.