The contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the court below has erred in its order in observing that the decree produced for execution contains a plan appended to it. Learned counsel referred to the decree which is put in execution and pointed out that there is no such plan appended to the decree. Learned counsel also referred to the judgment based on which the decree was passed and pointed out that all that is marked in the suit is two commission reports and no plan is appended. It is under these circumstances the petitioner points out that the judgment debtor was constrained to approach the court below for appointment of a Commissioner to identify the property which is to be delivered. 2. The court below in paragraph 4 of the order has categorically and specifically stated that there is a measured plan appended to the decree showing the decree schedule property O.P.(C) No.2278/2014 2 and that E.P has been filed in respect of that property. If the grievance of the petitioner is that such statement is not correct and is contrary to the facts, the remedy available to him is to file a review.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that delivery stands posted to tomorrow and the petitioner may be given a breathing time to file a review.
4. In the light of the specific submission that there is no plan appended to the decree and that is evident from the judgment based on which the decree was passed, it is only proper that the petitioner is given some time to file a review.
This Original Petition is disposed of directing to keep delivery in abeyance for a period of ten days from today so as to enable the petitioner to take such steps as are available to him under law.
Sd/-
P.BHAVADASAN JUDGE smp