A.RAJASHEKER REDDY,J. - (1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order and decree in E.P. No. 71 of 2004 in O.S. No. 23 of 1992 dated 28.01.2011, wherein the Court below ordered delivery of possession by 14.02.2011 in respect of the property bearing door No. 17/241 in Yemmiganur with boundaries i.e., East: Hut bearing door No. 17/240 of Jabbar Sab, West: House bearing No. 17/242 belongs to decree holder, North: Hut bearing No. 17/241 then CC road; South: Rastha.
(2.) Heard Sri K.V. Raghuveer and Sri B. Purusotham Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Sri Butta Vijay Bhasker, learned counsel on behalf of the respondent.
(3.) The main contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioners is that the decree holder himself could not identify the schedule property as per the decree, as such, the Court below should not have allowed the decree holder to amend the plaint schedule property in execution proceedings. The decree holder has changed boundaries of the schedule property from time to time and the boundaries mentioned in the decree, advocate commissioner 's report and EP proceedings are totally different. He would further contend that unless judgment of Court below is suitably corrected, the decree holder cannot alter the decree and that the decree holder has to approach the Court which passed decree with a petition to make appropriate corrections in judgment as also in decree to enable him to realise the fruits of decree passed in his favour. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment reported in Yempalla Ramaiah v. Pallamparthi Krishna Reddy and others, 2007 (1) ALD 367. He would further contend that even if the decree holder files an application under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC, the executing Court cannot go behind decree and amend the same. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgments reported in Bai Shakriben (dead) by Natwar Melsingh and others v. Special Land Acquisition Officer and another, (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 533 and Deepa Bhargava and another v. Mahesh Bhargava and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 294.;