1 APHC010041712026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3208] TUESDAY,THE THIRD DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 286/2026 Between: 1. UNDRAJAVARAPU RAMA DEVI, W/O.SURESH, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/O.ANTHANNAVARIPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RELANGI, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. DIRISIPO SURAMMA, W/O.LATE PEDA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.21-30, ANTHANNAVARIPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION RELANGI, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 2. DIRISIPO SRINU, S/O.LATE PEDA NAGESWARA RAO, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O.D.NO.21-30, ANTHANNAVARIPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RELANGI, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 3. DIRISIPO PUSHPA RAJU, (DIED) 4. DIRISIPO PUSHPA, W/O.PUSHPA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/O. ANTHANNAVARIPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RELANGI, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI 2 DISTRICT. 5. DIRISIPO YESU, S/O.PUSHPA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. ANTHANNAVARIPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION RELANGI, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 6. DIRISIPO CHINNA, S/O.PUSHPA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/O. ANTHANNAVARIPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION RELANGI, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 7. GEDDADA SANTA KUMARI, W/O.SRINIVASU, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, R/O. ANTHANNAVARIPETA, NEAR RAILWAY STATION, RELANGI, TANUKU, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 8. DIRISIPO BHASKARA RAO, S/O.PUSHPA RAJU, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS R/O. C/O.SAVARAPU JOHN, PERAVALLI, PERAVALLI MANDAL, WEST GODAVARI DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SAI GANGADHAR CHAMARTY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. P.A.N.V. RAVI TEJA 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.286 of 2026 ORDER: The present civil revision petition is filed by judgment debtor No.6 aggrieved by the order dated 12.11.2025 in E.A.No.16 of 2024 in E.P.No.19 of 2017 in O.S.No.95 of 2016 on the file of the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division)-cum-Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Tanuku. 2. Heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarty, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.A.N.V.Ravi Teja, the learned counsel for respondent No.2. 3. Respondent Nos.1 and 2-decree holders filed E.A.No.16 of 2024 in E.P.No.19 of 2017 in O.S.No.95 of 2016 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 C.P.C. seeking appointment of a Village/Mandal Surveyor to measure, demarcate and fix the boundaries of the E.P. schedule property for the purpose of effecting delivery in execution of the decree passed in O.S.No.95 of 2016. 4. Admittedly, O.S.No.95 of 2016 was filed for delivery of possession and permanent injunction. The said suit was decreed 4 by order dated 14.09.2016. For the reasons best known, even after lapse of nine years, the said decree has not been executed and respondent Nos.1 and 2 have not been able to get the fruits of the decree. On perusal of the impugned order, though an Amin was appointed and tried to execute the decree by delivering the possession, the property could not be physically located or measured. Considering the said fact, the trial Court allowed the application by directing the Mandal Surveyor to measure and demarcate the E.P. schedule property admeasuring 78 square yards in R.S.No.303/8B, Ananthannavari Peta, Relangi. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner/judgment debtor No.6 mainly contended that the impugned order is beyond the scope of the decree. When the suit was filed for recovery of possession with specific particulars in the schedule, the question of demarcation and fixation of boundaries would not arise. Hence, the impugned order is beyond the scope of the decree, which is not permissible in view of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the impugned order is contrary to the observations of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as the decree. Accordingly, he requested to set aside the same. 5 6. Sri A.Veera Swamy, learned counsel representing Sri P.A.N.V.Ravi Teja, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, submitted that both the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are neighbours and are living in thatched houses. Though respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed O.S.No.95 of 2016 for recovery of the suit schedule property and the said suit was decreed way back in 2016, even after lapse of nine years, they have not been able to get the fruits of the decree. On several occasions, the Amin tried to execute the decree, but due to the resistance of the petitioner/judgment debtor No.6, the same could not be carried out. He further relied on the schedule of the E.P. proceedings, wherein the particulars of the property are clearly mentioned; however, the same has to be identified by the concerned authority for delivery of the possession. Hence, the impugned order is well within the scope of the decree. 7. Considering the said submissions and on perusal of the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that there is no error in the order passed by the trial Court. Though the decree was passed long ago, the same has not been executed so far. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the technicalities. 6 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. _______________________ JUSTICE D.RAMESH Date: 03.03.2026 Ivd 7 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.RAMESH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.286 of 2026 Dated: 03.03.2026 Ivd