1. This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed by the petitioner/decree holder assailing the order dated 01.05.2026 passed in E.A.No.13 of 2025 in E.P.No.6 of 2018 in O.S.No.44 of 2010 by the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Armoor (for short “Executing Court”), whereby and whereunder the learned Executing Court allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos.2 and 3/judgment debtors under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the CPC’) seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the E.P. schedule property, note down its physical features, take photographs, measure and identify the property with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Morthad, prepare a sketch map and submit a report.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff instituted suit vide O.S.No.44 of 2010 on the file of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Armoor, seeking perpetual injunction restraining the respondent No.1/defendant-Shaik Ahmed Hussain, from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property i.e, layout Plot Nos.138, 147, 148, 149, 150 and 151 in Survey Nos.1353/1 and 1354/1, in total to an extent of 180-0” X 60-0” feets, situated at N.H.Road No.16, Nizamabad to Karimnagar, Morthad Village and Mandal, Nizamabad District. The said property was described with the following boundaries: North: Internal Road; South: Internal Road; East: National Highway Road No.6; and West: Layout Plot Nos.136, 146 and 151. The defendant contested the suit by filing a written statement. The trial Court framed issues with regard to the possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and his entitlement to perpetual injunction. The plaintiff examined PW.1 and PW.2 and marked Exs.A1 to A4. The defendant did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence. On consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court found the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit schedule property and decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 06.12.2013, restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property. The decree was not challenged and has attained finality. After the death of the defendant, respondent Nos.2 and 3, being his legal representatives, were brought on record in the execution proceedings. The petitioner filed E.P.No.6 of 2018 under Order XXI Rule 32 of the CPC alleging violation of the decree and seeking their detention in civil prison. During the pendency of the execution proceedings, the petitioner filed E.A.No.9/2018 seeking police protection and the same was dismissed by the Executing Court vide order dated 05.11.2021. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed C.R.P.No.1918 of 2021 before this Court. This Court vide order dated 22.04.2022, directed the Morthad Police to provide necessary aid to the petitioner/decree holder for implementation of the decree dated 06.12.2013 in O.S.No.44 of 2010 against the respondent Nos.2 and 3. In the said order, it was observed that despite the decree of perpetual injunction, respondent Nos.2 and 3 attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the decree holder over the suit schedule property. While E.P.No.6 of 2018 was pending, respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed E.A.No.13 of 2025 under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Section 151 of the CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the E.P. schedule property, note down the physical features, take photographs and prepare a sketch map with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Morthad. The specific case pleaded by respondent Nos.2 and 3 was that the boundaries mentioned in the decree schedule do not tally with the physical features existing on the ground and that there was ambiguity regarding identification of the property. The petitioner/decree holder opposed the application contending that the decree clearly identifies the property and that the application was beyond the scope of the execution proceedings. The learned executing Court, vide impugned order dated 01.05.2026 allowed the said E.A and held that an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed in execution proceedings for identification of the property and noting its physical features. Relying upon the judgment in Chakka Ranga Rao v. Molla Mustari Banu1, the learned executing Court held that there was ambiguity regarding identification of the property and accordingly, appointed an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. Aggrieved thereby, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed.

3. Heard the submissions of Sri G. Sri Harsha, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.A.K. Mukheed, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and perused the record.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/decree holder submitted that the learned executing Court exceeded its jurisdiction in appointing an Advocate Commissioner in execution of a decree for perpetual injunction. It is contended that the decree clearly describes 1 2006 (5) ALT 220 = 2006 (5) ALD 838 the suit schedule property by reference to the layout plot numbers, survey numbers, extent and boundaries and that there is no ambiguity requiring clarification. It is further contended that the defendant in the suit had contested the claim of the petitioner, but did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. Having suffered a decree which attained finality, respondent Nos.2 and 3, as his legal representatives, cannot seek to reopen the question of identity or possession in execution proceedings. Learned counsel submitted that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner in the present case would amount to collection of fresh evidence and reopening the issues which stood concluded by the judgment and decree. It is contended that the reliance placed by the learned executing Court upon Chakka Ranga Rao’s case (supra) is misplaced, as that case arose out of a decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession where the precise area of encroachment could not be identified from the plaint plan. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the following decisions:

               i) Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai Abdul Rehman ((1970) 1 SCC 670)

               ii) M. Rama Chandraiah v. Vallepu China Ankaiah, C.R.P.No.581 of 2021, dated 01.02.2022 (Order dated 01.02.2022 passed in CRP No.581/2021 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh).

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the boundaries mentioned in the decree do not tally with the physical features existing on the ground and that the property claimed by the petitioner cannot be properly identified. It is contended that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are facing execution proceedings in which their detention in civil prison has been sought for alleged violation of the injunction decree and, therefore, it is necessary for the executing Court to ascertain whether the property in respect of which the decree is sought to be enforced corresponds with the property existing on the ground. Learned counsel further submitted that Order XXVI Rule 18-A of the CPC makes the provisions of Order XXVI applicable to proceedings in execution and that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for identification of the property would assist the executing Court without altering or reopening the decree. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in Chakka Ranga Rao’s case (supra) and contended that where there is a dispute regarding identification, localisation or demarcation of property, an Advocate Commissioner can be appointed with the assistance of a qualified surveyor.

6. The point that arises for consideration is:

               “Whether the learned executing Court was justified in allowing E.A.No.13 of 2025 and appointing an Advocate Commissioner for identification of the property and noting its physical features in execution of the decree for perpetual injunction?”

7. There is no dispute with regard to the legal position that an executing Court cannot go behind the decree. In Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi’s case (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that an executing Court must take the decree as it stands and execute it according to its terms. The jurisdiction of the executing Court under Section 47 of the CPC is concerned with matters relating to the execution, discharge or satisfaction of the decree and does not extend to reopening matters which have already been adjudicated between the parties. At the same time, the provisions of Order XXVI of the CPC can be invoked in execution proceedings by virtue of Rule 18-A thereof. Therefore, the mere fact that the proceeding is one in execution cannot, by itself, be a ground to hold that an Advocate Commissioner can never be appointed. The question in the present case is whether the circumstances pleaded by respondent Nos.2 and 3 warrant such appointment. The decree under execution is a decree for perpetual injunction. The trial Court, after considering the pleadings and evidence, recorded a finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit schedule property and granted an injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with such possession. The decree schedule specifically identifies the property by reference to the layout plot numbers, Survey Nos.1353/1 and 1354/1, total extent of 180 feet × 60 feet and the four boundaries. Thus, the decree is not bereft of any description of the property. The defendant had contested the suit and specifically raised a dispute regarding the property claimed by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, he did not adduce evidence in support of his defence. The trial Court, after considering the evidence of PW.1 and PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A4, recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff. The said finding has attained finality.

8. In Chakka Ranga Rao’s case (supra), relied upon by the learned executing Court, does not assist the respondents in the facts of the present case. In the said case, the decree was for declaration of title and recovery of possession of a particular portion of property. The difficulty before the executing Court arose because the plaint plan did not contain sufficient measurements and distances necessary to identify the portion allegedly encroached upon. In those circumstances, the High Court held that appointment of an Advocate Commissioner with the assistance of a qualified surveyor would facilitate identification and demarcation of the decretal property. Therefore, the facts of the present case are materially different. In the instant case, the decree is one for perpetual injunction and the property is described by specific layout plot numbers, survey numbers, extent and boundaries. The decree does not require delivery of possession of an unidentified portion of land. The execution proceedings concern enforcement of the injunction already granted by the competent Court.

9. On the other hand, the decision in M. Rama Chandraiah’s case (supra), is of considerable relevance. In that case, the suit was filed for perpetual injunction and the decree holder had obtained a finding regarding possession. During execution, the judgment debtor sought appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note the physical features and take photographs on the ground that he continued to remain in possession of the property. The High Court held that an Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for collecting evidence and that the Commissioner may be appointed for noting physical features only where such material is required to assist the Court in arriving at a finding of fact and there is some ambiguity requiring clarification. The High Court further held that where the trial Court had already decided the question of possession, such finding could not be overturned by the executing Court and that, in the absence of any finding regarding the lacuna or ambiguity requiring clarification, appointment of an Advocate Commissioner was not justified. The principle laid down in M. Rama Chandraiah’s case (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the present case. The learned executing Court has merely recorded that the boundaries do not tally with the physical features and that there is ambiguity regarding identification of the property. However, the impugned order does not identify any specific ambiguity in the decree schedule which prevents execution of the decree. The decree itself contains the layout plot numbers, survey numbers, extent and boundaries. No defect in the decree has been pointed out which renders it incapable of execution. The appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of measuring and identifying the property, in the circumstances of the present case, would necessarily involve an exercise going beyond the terms of the decree.

10. It is also relevant that this Court, in C.R.P.No.1918 of 2021, arising out of the very same execution proceedings, had already directed the Morthad Police to provide necessary aid to the decree holder for implementation of the decree dated 06.12.2013 against respondent Nos.2 and 3. The said order was passed after noticing the allegation that respondent Nos.2 and 3 were interfering with the possession of the decree holder notwithstanding the decree of perpetual injunction. The said circumstance assumes relevance while considering whether the subsequent application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner discloses any genuine difficulty in execution of the decree. The learned executing Court, however, has not recorded any specific finding as to why the description contained in the decree is insufficient for enforcement of the injunction.

11. It may be noted that the purpose of execution proceedings is to enforce the decree as granted and not to reopen the adjudication which resulted in the decree. An executing Court may certainly take such steps as are necessary for giving effect to the decree. But such power cannot be exercised in a manner which permits the parties to reopen concluded findings or to introduce fresh material for questioning the basis of the decree. In the present case, the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to measure and identify the property, in the absence of any demonstrated ambiguity in the decree, would have the effect of permitting the judgment debtors to raise afresh a dispute which was available to the original defendant during the trial and which stood concluded with the decree dated 06.12.2013. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned executing Court was not justified in allowing E.A.No.13 of 2025. The impugned order suffers from material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the executing Court and is liable to be set aside.

12. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order dated 01.05.2026 passed in E.A.No.13 of 2025 in E.P.No.6 of 2018 in O.S.No.44 of 2010 by the learned Executing Court is set aside. Consequently, E.A.No.13 of 2025 stands dismissed. The learned Executing Court shall proceed with E.P.No.6 of 2018 in accordance with law and dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. No costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.