The issue involved in Dr. Modtutkar Trimbak )ore v. Vasant Ramkrishna Kolhatkarl was entirely different. In tl'rrr case, a learned Si

P. Srinivas Reddy, S/o Late P. Narsimha Reddy Aged about 43 years, occ. Private employe.=Rlo 48-44, Papaiah Yadav Nagar, Qutubullapur Mandal and Municipality Ranga Reddy District. P. BaLakrishna Reddy. S/o Late P. Narsimha Reddy, aged about 38 years, 9cc.. Busines_s, Rlo 48-44, Papaiah Yadav Nagar, Qutrlbullapur Mandal and Ivlunicipality Ranga Reddy District. P. Raja_Mah_eshwar Reddy, S/o Late P. Narsimha Reddy, aged about 35 years, Occ. Business,R/o 48-44, Papaiah Yadav Nagar,'eufubullapur Mandal and Municipality Ranga Reddy District. \tlls. U1iqu9 Bus Body Building, Rep. by its partner Panduranga Rao plot No. 5-52, D-116, Phase No.1, lDAJeedimetla, Hyderabad ...RESPONDENTS lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 OF CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay of all further proceedings in E.P No. 10 of 2022 on the file of the prl. Senior i''-' civil Judge cum Asst. sessions Judge-lvledchal Malkajg r District At Medchal during the pendency of the present CRp. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. SRtNIVAS VELAGAPUDI Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 4: C N MOORTy(No r )presentation) The Court made the following: ORDER TIIE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA C.R.P.No.2168 of 2O25 ORDER: No onc appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 despite service of Notice

2. The petitioner before this Court is the Judgment-debtor No.2 in the Execution Petition hled by the respondent Nos.l to 4/Decree- holders. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order by which the petitioner's Appiication for appointment of Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 19O8 was dismissed.

3. This Court does not find any merit in the Civil Revision Petition, since the Trial Court has indicated sufficient reasons for dismissing the petitioner's tr.A. The reasons stated in the impugned order are as follows.

4. The petitioner's E.A. was hled after the Suit was decreed in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs. The petitioner did not prefer any appeal from the decree however, the petitioner filed an application for appointment of Arlvocate Commissioner when the plaintiffs proceeded to execute the decree.

5. The petitioner was a party to the Suit and contested the Suit on ,i*i,". However, despite such participation and being accorded full 2 hearing, the petitioner did not raise any dispute r.- rh regard to the identity of the propert5r. The application for appoin rent of Advocate Commissioner u,as filed at the stage ol execution of il crec only for the purpose of disputing the idcntity of the suiL schedu le rroperty.

6. The Trial Court accordingly found that since ; c petitioner had not taken any steps for disputing the identitl, of r: suit schedule property during the course of trial and had also r r t exhausted the right to challenge the decree by way o[ an appeal, t l- r petitioner couid not be permitted to raise such dispute after thc st_r 1 u,as decreed on merits. The Trial Court was also of the view that tl e petitioner had filed the I.A. only to cause multiplicity of litigation ar < further delay in disposing of the matter and hence proceedecl o dismiss the petitioner's I.A.

7. The issue involved in Dr. Modtutkar Trimbak )ore Vs. Vasant Ramkrishna Kolhatkarl was entirely different. In tl'rrr case, a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court found thar the decree that was drawn up in favour of the Decree-holder did not E r.e a description of the room of which possession was to be hande I over. In the present case, the Suit was decreed in favour of llr plaintiffs after noting that the plaintiffs are in possession of tir property. Hence, the present facts are who1l., suit schedule different frorn Dr. ModLukar Timb ak Go re. ' AIR 1983 BOMBAY 277 I "/ -.,ig'' ,/ 3

8. Prakosh Chander Manchanda Vs. Janki Monchanda2 also does not assist the case of the petitioner since the issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court could have proceeded to dispose of the suit under Order XVII Rute 2 of the CPC in the absence of one of the parties to thc suit- The Supreme Court directed the Triai Court to consider and dispose of the respondent's application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. The present case involves the dismissal of the petitioner's application lor appointment of an Advocate Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the CPC by way of a reasoned ordcr.

9. Hence, none of the decisions cited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assist the case of the petitioner for the purpose of setting aside the impugned order. 1O. ' CRP.No.2168 of 2025 is accorclingly dismissed. Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs SD/-M.NAGAMANI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ,/t^(9' //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Prl. senior civil Judge cum Asst. sessions Judge-Medchal Malkajgiri District At Medchal Cv

2. One CC to SRI SRINIVAS VELAGAPUDI Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRI C N IMOORTY Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies l i : l I t i I HIGH COURT DATED:0310912025 r' I ORDER CRP.No.2168 of 2025 e * Ti.E S rA i 3 i, IAll 202$ z * ) DISMISSING THE CIVIL REVISION PET ION : ) i I I I 0 o