The order refusing to set aside the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner in the execution proceedings is impugned. The impugned order inter alia reads as follows:
“The Commissioner has clearly identified the property by possession. The defendants have no case that the property claimed by them is situated in some other place. The Commissioner has reported that on the northern side of the plaint 'B' schedule property there is compound wall and on the eastern side there is fence using plastic sheets and on the east it is the Janatha road. She has reported that there is no boundary on the southern and western sides. As there is clear boundary on two sides, the measurement was easy for the Commissioner and she has identified the 3.5 cents on the basis of the possession.”
2. I am not inclined to think that the impugned order suffers from any error of jurisdiction warranting interference in this supervisory jurisdiction. More than ten years have elapsed since the filing of the suit and the execution proceedings cannot be dragged on. The petitioner can at any rate invoke Section 47 2 OWP(C) No. 1181/2014 of the Code of Civil Procedure in case there is any real grievance about the proceedings affecting delivery.
I decline jurisdiction. The Original Petition is dismissed.
ncd V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE