IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI MONDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B.S.BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 171 OF 2024 Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C. praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the Higli Court may be pleased to allow the Civil Revision Petition by setting aside the Docket Order dated 20-12-2023 in E.P No. 240 of 2023 in O.S.No. 268 of 2011 in the Court of The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam. Between: Manohar Rati, S/o Ramnadh; Rati, Aged about 55 years, Hindu, Prop. Shree Ram Power Equipments, D.No. 28-10-2021, Suryabagh, 0pp. Hotel Alakapuri, Visakhapatnam- 20 PETITIONER/1 JDR/DEFENDANT N0.1 AND 1. Saroj Devi Jain, W/o Suresh Kumar, Aged about 55 years, Jains, Housewife, R/o D.No. 56-19-1, Velampeta, Visakhapatnam-1 ...(PLAINTIFF/DHR) 2. Rajkumar Rati, S/o RamnadH Rati, Aged about 58 years, Hindu, R/o D.No. 31-31-21, Sri Narayaha Bhavanam, 5TH Floor, Sai Baba Street, Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam.(Proforma Party and no relief is claimed) (Respondent No.2 not necessary party) ...Respondents lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 15T CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in E.P No. 240 of 2023 in O.S.No. 268 of 2011 on the file of The Principal Senior Civil Judge Court, Visakhapatnam Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MARRI VENKATA RAMANA Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI TVS PRABHAKARA RAO The Court made the following order: APHC010037162024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3311] Monday, the seventeenth day of March two thousand and twenty five ‘ Present The Honourable Ms-Justice B.S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No: 171 of 2024 Between: ...Petitioner Manohar Rati and ...Respondents Saroj Devi Jain and others Counsel for the petitioner: 1. Marri Venkata Ramana Counsel for the respondents: I 1 .T V S Prabhakara Rao The Court made the following: ORDER: This revision petition is filed under Section 115 of C.P.C against the docket order dated 20.12.2023 in E.P.No.240 of 2023 in O.S. No.268 of 2011 the file of the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam by which issuance of notice to JDr under Order XXI rule 35 CPC and delivery of the petition schedule property on payment of process were ordered simultaneously. The petitioner contended that the execution Court committed grave error in passing the impugned order directing delivery of the petition schedule property without conducting an enquiry in the execution petition and also in passing self contradictory orders to issue notice and deliver the prooertv at the on 2. Vs 2 CRP No. 171 of 207A same time, as nothing is left in execution after delivery of the property. It is further contended that without amending the plaint and plaint schedule, granting relief of delivery of part of the suit schedule property without specific demarcation is not permissible. That apart, it is further contended that in view of the nature of the relief granted in the decree, the delivery of property cannot be ordered without conducting prior enquiry. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the decree was passed directing the defendant part of the suit schedule property by excluding Ex.B.4 purchased by the 2^^ respondent from Mudadia Ramana which is an extent of 50 square feet (6 feet x 8 feet, 5.33 square yards) of site and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within the stipulated period, but, such direction in the decree cannot be executed without demarcation on land or by amending the schedule of the property with precise measurements and description of the boundaries. In this regard, he further contended that when Amin is deputed for delivery of the property, it must be identifiable, whereas as per the above said direction, the property to be delivered cannot be identified and so the decree is inexecutable. Nextly, he contended that without conducting enquiry in this regard, particularly in the light of the above circumstances, directing delivery of the property is improper. As mentioned in the grounds of revision, it is also contended that ordering notice and delivery at ^the same time is self contradictory and nothing would be left in execution after delivery of the property and so no purpose would be served by issuing of notice. The 2"^^ respondent is not a necessary party. The learned counsel for the 1®* respondent submitted that prior notice is not contemplated for ordering delivery of the property under Order XXI CPC and therefore, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality. He further submitted that without challenging the decree in appeal, it is impermissible for the JDr to challenge the decree in the proceedings 3. 4. 5. 6. in 3 '-:.n CRP No.l71of 2024 execution and moreover the property is identifiable in view of the contention raised and therefore, a specific part of the property was also excluded out of the plaint schedule property. Para No.1 of the decree is relevant. So it is noted here: 7. “1. that the suit be and the same is hereby partly decreed directing the 1®* defendant to vacate the part of the suit schedule premises by excluding the property covered under Ex.B.4 purchased by 2 defendant from Mudadia Ramana which is an extent of 50 sft. (6ft. x 8ft., 5.33 sq.yards) of site and deliver the vacant possession of the same to the plaintiff within two months from the date of this judgment, failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to proceed in accordance with nd law; Schedule Property All that an RCC structure (shop room) building which is a part and parcel of a three-story building and in which a shop on the ground floor in the name and style of "Shree Ram Power Equipments" situated in the door no. 28-10-21, Suryabagh, 0pp. 28-10-21, Suryabagh, 0pp. to Hotel Alakapuri, Visakhapatnam, in Plot No. 56/B, Ward No. 27, covered by Block No. 47, T.S. No. 1678 part and within the limits of Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation and bounded as follows: East : Plaintiffs property South: Plaintiffs property West : Stair case of plaintiffs property North : 60 feet road Measurements: Approximately 130 sq ft Insofar as the identity of the property is concerned, the decretal part is clear as the property to be excluded (is covered by the document) is specific 8. 4 CRP No.171 of and if at all cannot be identified on ground, the Amin who is entrusted with the warrant would report the same to the Court. 9. In fact, no notice is contemplated under Order XXI rule 35 CPC before directing delivery of the property. Order XXI rule 35 CPC read as follows: “35. Decree for immovable property. - (1‘) Where a decree is for the delivery of any immovable property, possession thereof shall be delivered to the party to whom it has been adjudged, or to such person as he may appoint to receive delivery on his behalf, and, if necessary, by removing any person bound by the decree who refuses to vacate the property. (2) Where a decree is for the joint possession of immovable property, such possession shall be delivered by affixing a copy of the warrant in some conspicuous place on the property and proclaiming the beat of drum, or other customary mode, at some convenient place, the substance of the decree. (3) Where possession of any building on enclosure is to be delivered and the person in possession, being bound by the decree, does not afford free access, the Court, through its officers, may, after giving reasonable warning and facility to any woman nbt appearing in public according to the customs of the country to withdraw, remove or open any lock or bolt or break open any door or do any other act necessary for putting the decree-holder in possession.” It is only if the case is covered by Order XXI rule 22 CPC, a notice is required or else no notice is required. As such, the objection raised in this regard is not sustainable. % 5 CRPNo.l71of2024 see any reason to interfere with the impugned 8. This Court does not order. 9. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs, shall stand closed^^ Petitions, if any pending, In this civil revision petition, Sd/- KJ.RAJA BABU ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To 1. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam 2. One CC to Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri T V S Prabhakara Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Three CD Copies RAM ::?■ * 0* HIGH COURT DATED:17/03/2025 ORDER r 13 OCT 2025 CRP.No.171 of 2024 CO DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION WITHOUT COSTS