APHC010554162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] THURSDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 3079/2024 Between: 1. MURUKUTLA VISWESWARA DEVI VARA PRASADA RAO, S/O.BUCHI VENKATA SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC RETD EMPLOYEE, R/O.MOGALTUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GUNDUMOGULA DURGA PRASADA RAO, S/o.Sriramulu, Aged about 64 years, R/o.Penumadam Village, Palakol Mandal, West Godavari District. ...RESPONDENT Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased topleased to set aside the orders dated 05.07.2024 passed in E.P.No.26/2018 in OS. No.30/2012 by the Honourable Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasapur, West Godavari by allowing the CRP and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to condone the delay of 42 days filing the CRP, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 2 VS,J C.R.P.No.3079 of 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant interim stay of all further proceedings in EP No.26/2018 in O.S.No.30/2012 including the execution of warrant of delivery possession of the EP schedule property in pursuance of orders dated 05.07.2024 in E.P No.26/2018 in O.S.No.30/2012 on the file of the Hon’ble Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narasapur, West Godavari District, pending disposal of the above CRP and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B V ANJANEYULU Counsel for the Respondent: 1. RAMBABU KOPPINEEDI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J C.R.P.No.3079 of 2024 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.30 of 2002 and the suit was decreed on 08.08.2007. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2012, which was dismissed and the decree was further confirmed in the second appeal. 2. Thereafter, the respondent/plaintiff filed E.P.No.26 of 2018 in O.S.No.30 of 2002 for execution under Order XXI Rule 35 CPC seeking delivery of possession. In the said execution petition, the respondent/plaintiff also filed E.A.No.451 of 2019 praying to appoint an advocate commissioner to survey and demarcate the schedule property. Accordingly, an advocate commissioner was appointed. Thereafter, the advocate commissioner surveyed the schedule property and laid the boundary stones and submitted a report to the Court below. For which, the petitioner/defendant raised certain objections to the report, contending that the demarcation of item 2 of E.P. schedule property was done without mentioning the proper boundaries which in fact belongs to the others property not to the respondent/plaintiff. But, in spite of the same, the Court below has passed the orders in E.P. even without referring to or considering the objections raised by the petitioner/defendant, relying solely on the advocate commissioner’s report. The relevant portion said order reads as under: “2. On the application of D.Hr a Commissioner was appointed to measure the petition schedule property with the assistance of Mandal Surveyor and fix the boundaries. The Commissioner executed 4 VS,J C.R.P.No.3079 of 2024 warrant and filed report into Court on 03.11.2022. The Commissioner identified the location of the E.P. schedule property with the help of D.Hr and Mandal Surveyor as per the FMB and fixed boundaries in respect of item No.1 and 2 of E.P. Schedule property. 3. Under the facts and circumstances the petitioner/D.Hr is entitled to issue fresh delivery warrant to effect the delivery.” 3. In view of the above, and considering the fact that the objections raised by the petitioner/defendant were not dealt with by the Court below, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order warrants interference. 4. Therefore, instead of keeping the present revision petition pending, this Court deems it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the Court below for fresh consideration and for passing fresh appropriate orders in E.P.No.26 of 2018 in O.S.No.30 of 2002 on the file of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Narsapur, after duly considering the objections raised by the petitioner/defendant and affording opportunity to both parties. The said process shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 5. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. No costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date :18.09.2025. KGR