ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 22-08-2007 in E,P,No. 148 of 2006 in O.S.No. 423 of 1997 on the file of III Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad, 2, The suit was filed against the revision petitioner for dissolution of the partnership firm and for return of the material, machinery and tools by the revision petitioner or to pay the value of the same estimated at Rs,6,46,300/-. The plaintiffs averred in the suit that the present revision petitioner first defendant therein was in custody of the material, machinery and tools undertaken to be returned after release of the surety papers pledged by them with the bank. Accordingly, the plaintiffs claimed to have substituted the collateral security with the bank, but alleged the first defendant to have not returned the material, machinery and tools etc, 3. The first defendant contested the suit contending among other things that It was for the plaintiffs to shift the material from the premises of the first defendant to their own place at their risk for which the first defendant was not responsible. In fact, the same was specified in the reply legal notice given to the plaintiffs and he contended that as the material was not in his possession and as it was shifted to the premises of the first defendant at the risk of the plaintiffs under their lock and key, they were not entitled to the suit relief. After the trial on merits, the trial Court rendered the Judgment, dated 31-10-2003 in which it was concluded that the plaintiffs discharged their liability undertook by them and the first defendant was liable to return the properties kept in his premises on which a charge was created to the second defendant-bank. The trial Court disbelieved the claim of the first defendant that the material was kept at his premises at the risk of the plaintiffs under their lock and key and he was directed to return the material, machinery and tools within one month or in the alternative to pay the value of the same amounting to Rs.6,46,300/- with costs and future interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization. 4. 4. Thereafter, the decree-holders filed E.P.No. 44 of 2004 against the revision petitioner/first defendant under Order XXI, Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct delivery of the materials in question and also for appointment of an advocate commissioner to conduct stock taking and to prepare an inventory with the details of the condition and serviceability of the movables and to assess the damage sustained. business, kept the material lying for 8 to 10 years, no undue advantage can be taken alleging any damage to the materials. 5. The revision petitioner contested the execution petition contending that as the materials were kept by the decree-holders under their lock and key, he lost all he rents for the premises till then. which comes to Rs.1,000/- per month or RS.1 ,08,000/-, which has to be paid by the decree-holders. When the decree-holders, with experience in such business, kept the material lying for 8 to 10 years, no undue advantage can be taken alleging any damage to the materials. 6. A commissioner was appointed and he filed a report before the executing Court along with a list of inventory and report of tile Chartered Engineer or the valuation report for the assets as on 23-04-2005. The total valuation of the material was assessed at Rs.2,94,040/- as on that day. The judgment debtor in his objections to the Commissioner's report did not specifically question the valuation report filed along with the Commissioner's report. The executing Court passed an order on 06-09-2006 recording the objections and observing that the same will be considered at the time of passing appropriate orders. Therefore, E.P.No. 44 of 2004 was dismissed, due to absence of any representation, by an order, dated 28-09-2006. 7. The decree-holders filed E.P.No. 148 of 2006 much before the dismissal of E.P.No. 44 of 2004. The execution petition was filed seeking recovery of the amount of Rs.6,46,300/- with interest and costs, totaling to RS.10,13,131/- and the judgment debtor/ revision petitioner contested the sa.me contending that he informed the decreeholders about the intention to return the material to them within one month as per the directions of the Court by writing a letter to them under registered post with acknowledgment due and he was not responsible for the loss of value of the articles. As the articles are kept under the lock and key of the Advocate-Commissioner, the decree-holders are not entitled to recover the value of the articles in this execution petition filed to harass them. 8. The executing Court passed the impugned order, on 22-08-2007 observing that the report of the Commissioner discloses that most of the articles were in a very bad condition, while some of the plaint schedule articles were not available. The Court felt that the decree-holders cannot be forced to accept the articles in the custody of the revision petitioner until the Commissioner made an inventory and responsibility for the loss of the value of the articles, should be on the judgment debtor. Holding that the decree-holders are entitled to claim the value of the articles as an alternative relief, the executing Court rejected the claim of the revision petitioner that he was again willing to deliver the articles referring to the report of the Commissioner that he had to break open the locks of the premises where the articles were kept. Therefore, the executing Court ordered attachment of the properties of the revision petitioner. 9. The said order is challenged in this revision petition contending that when E.P.No. 44 of 2004 for delivery of the articles was dismissed for default and when the decree-holders undertook in E.P.No. 44 of 2004 that they will file a separate execution petition only if ~he movables are not realized, the executing Court erred in directing attachment of the properties of the judgment debtor. The negligence of the decree-holders cannot penalize the judgment debtor and the decree-holders suppressed the material facts, more so, about the earlier dismissal of E.P.No. 44 of 2004. Hence, the revision petitioner desired the order in question to be reversed. 10. Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M.M. Ali, learned counsel for the decree-holders strenuously reiterated their respective contentions and referred to various precedents which will be referred to in due course. 11. The point for consideration IS the manner in which the decree in O.S.No. 423 of 1997 has to be executed in accordance with law. 12. Order XXI, Rule 31 of C.P.C. lays down the manner in which a decree for specific movable property has to be executed. 11. The point for consideration IS the manner in which the decree in O.S.No. 423 of 1997 has to be executed in accordance with law. 12. Order XXI, Rule 31 of C.P.C. lays down the manner in which a decree for specific movable property has to be executed. The execution can be made by seizure of the movables, if practicable and by delivery thereof to the decree-holders or their nominee or by detention in civil prison of the judgment debtor or by attachment of his property. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 31 prescribes the procedure to be followed in case of the judgment debtor not obeying the decree beyond months from the date of attachment of his properties. 13. In Sundararajulu Pillai v. K.S. Dorai Ram', the executing Court was advised to make every reasonable attempt to execute the decree and to obtain for the decree holder, the return of specific movable properties decreed and it is only when such endeavour is fruitless, the question of compensation arises. 14. In A.G. Venkatanarsaiah v. Smt. Vijayalakshmi and others, it was held that the need for stating amount of money to be paid in alternative in a decree for movable property arises only when delivery in specie cannot be ordered. It is only when the gods are not forth coming from the defendant, the plaintiffs may straightaway claim the amount. Referring to Order XXI, Rule 31 of C.P.C., the Division Bench, observed that the executing Court may, before making available compensation to the decree-holders, get the Court fee paid and afford an opportunity to both the parties for proving the quantum of compensation. 15. In Benares Bank Ltd., Agra v. Prem and Co. and others, the duty of a custodian of goods for safe custody as a bailee of the goods was stated. 16. 15. In Benares Bank Ltd., Agra v. Prem and Co. and others, the duty of a custodian of goods for safe custody as a bailee of the goods was stated. 16. In Dhian Singh Sobha Singh and another v. Union of India', the Apex Court laid down the principle for assessing damages in a case of wrongful detention of goods as not governed by any definite criteria as to what measure the damages should be, but it should be that whereby the wrongful act of one man something belonging to another is either itself so injured as not to be capable of being used or is taken away so that it cannot be used at all, that of itself is a ground for damages and in that case, damages were assessed as the amount which the aggrieved would have realized had the trucks been hired to outside parties. 17. In Vijaya Bank v. M/s United Corporation and others" also, the duty of a person in custody of the goods to take as much care as would be taken by the owner of the goods was reiterated and in Fatehlal v. Nandlalat and another, with reference to Order XXI, Rule 31 of C.P.C., a learned Single Judge opined that the decree holder is not bound to exhaust his remedy for recovery of property before proceeding to recover the money. 18. In Durga Prasad v. Gauri Shankar', piecemeal execution was held to be not barred and successive execution petitions were held maintainable. 19. With reference to the legal position that emerges from the above cited precedents by the learned counsel for both sides, it is thus seen that in a case of decree for specific movable properties, the effort of the executing court should be in the first instance to have the movable properties returned to the decree-holders and the question of compensating the decree-holders of the value of the goods arises only when that first alternative fails. However, if the goods could not be secured to the decree-holders in the manner in which it was desired by the decree due to the default of the judgment debtor, the compensation or damages will be assessed as equal to the loss sustained by the decree-holders by the deprivation of their use and due to the absence of reasonable care by the custodian of the goods. While successive execution petitions for execution of the same decree are not barred, it is to be seen herein whether the execution sought to be levied in E.P. No. 148 of 2006 is permissible and if so, in what way. 20. In the present case, after rejecting the contentions of the revision petitioner, the trial Court held in its judgment that the judgment debtor is bound to return the goods as described in the plaint schedule or in the alternative, their value assessed at Rs.6,46,300/- in the plaint. The judgment had obviously become final and neither the availability of the goods as described in the plaint schedule nor their value being Rs.6,46,300/- can be disputed at this stage. The decree-holders had applied in E.P. No 44 of 2004 initially for delivery of the goods only in tune With the procedure prescribed in Order XXI, Rule 31 CPC and though the said provi8ion makes no reference to any advocate-Commissioner in assessing the value of the goods etc., either due to availability of inherent powers to the executing Court under Section 151 CPC or due to the executing jurisdiction inherently enabling the executing Court to do all things necessary for successful execution of the decree, the procedure adopted in E.P.No.44 of 2004 in appointing an Advocate/Commissioner and getting an inventory done and getting the goods valued through the valuation report cannot be considered to be without jurisdiction. Such assessment also becomes probably necessary because of the judgment itself directing either to deliver the goods as described in the plaint schedule or in default, the payment of their value assessed at Rs.6,46,300/-. The Commissioner's report accompanied by the valuation report assessed the valuation of goods at Rs.2.49,040/- as on 23-04-2005 and neither the executing Court nor this Court can go into the causes for deterioration of the meanwhile, without any benefit to either I the value of goods in the light of the judgment the decree-holders or the judgment debtor, in the suit having become final placing the responsibility for the custody of the goods on the judgment debtor to the delivered to decree-holders within one month from the date of the decree. The parties are at dispute as to when exactly the judgment debtor offered the goods after the judgment and whether it was within one month prescribed under the decree, but the same pales into insignificance, as it is not the claim of either party that there was any significant deterioration in the value of the goods between the date of judgment and the date of the assessment through the Advocate- Commissioner. Therefore, the fact remains that the goods described in the plaint schedule accepted to be worth Rs.6,46,300/- in the judgment were found to be firstly not totally available and secondly, to be worth Rs.2,49,040/- to the extent available. Therefore, while the decree-holders have the alternative relief of compensation granted to them in case of non-availability of goods as decreed, they are taking recourse to E.P.No.148 of 2006 for realization of the said compensation due to the non-availability of the goods as decreed which cannot be considered unavailable to them. Though it is true that straight away reference was made to Rules 54 and 64 of Order XXI of CPC in the execution petition to enable attachment and sale of the properties, the decree-holders were cautious enough in mentioning the said relief to be in pursuance of or in terms of Order XXI, Rule 31 (2) CPC. While mentioning the provisions of law is only formal not disentitling the decree-holders to any relief to which they are otherwise entitled to on any technicalities, the factual matrix of the case, therefore, presents a situation where the goods as decreed were not available and the goods as available are languishing under the lock and key of the advocate-commissioner, may be probably further deteriorating in value, in the meanwhile, without any benefit to either the decree-holders or the judgment debtor. 21. 21. As the decree-holders and the judgment debtor are not now interested in getting physical possession of the goods and as the judgment debtor's premises are under the lock and key of the Commissioner due to the goods being kept therein, immediate steps have to be taken forthwith for sale of the said goods by the executing Court and crediting the sale proceeds to the execution petition in the first instance, It is admitted that any such sale now will not, in all probability, fetch the value assessed by the time of the Commissioner's visit and then the next question is as to who should bear the loss in the value of the goods after the Advocate-Commissioner's visit. Though some of the goods were found of the values specified by the Advocate-Commissioner, the decree-holders did not pursue E.P. No. 44 of 2004, which was dismissed for default unnecessarily leaving the premises under the lock and key of the Commissioner with neither party being responsible for further deterioration of the value. The judgment debtor was equally silent in not taking any steps either for disposal of the goods or for some other appropriate steps by the executing Court and in the absence of any express provision, interests of justice and equity may be better served by making both the decree-holders and the judgment debtor bear the loss equally. The judgment debtor will undoubtedly be liable to pay the value of the goods as decreed with costs and interest, minus the value of the goods as found on 23-04-2005. It is also admitted that by virtue of the interim orders of this Court, dated 31-12-2007 and 28-04-2008 apart from a deposit made earlier, sums of Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- were deposited by the judgment debtor to the credit of the execution petition on different dates, which have to be duly accounted for. 22. In the result, the decree-holders will be entitled to realize the sum of Rs.6,46,300/with interest thereon at 6% per annum from 13-10-1997, the date of suit, till 23-04-2005, the date of assessment of the value of the goods through the Advocate-Commissioner, and the costs awarded by the decree and incurred in execution and the sum of Rs.2,49,040/- being the value of the goods as assessed by the valuation report accompanying the Commissioner's report, has to be deducted from the said sum so arrived at as on 23-04-2005. On the balance of the sum due to the decree-holders, interest would again be calculated at 6% per annum from 24-04-2005 up to date, while deducting the deposits of RS.1 ,00,000/- and Rs.1,50,000/- or any other payments or deposits made earlier or later from the amount due on the respective dates of deposit or payment (calculating the interest only on the principal sum due). The balance so arrived at as on date shall be the amount for which further execution can be levied against the execution petition schedule properties by way of attachment and sale of the same. The executing Court shall take immediate steps for sale of the goods under the lock and key of the Advocate/Commissioner and credit the sale proceeds to the Execution Petition, which the decreeholders will be entitled to withdraw and which will be deducted from the amount due from the judgment debtor. In addition to the amount arrived at as indicated above, the judgment debtor will also be liable to pay half of the loss incurred in the value of the goods, assessed at RS.2,49,040/-, to the decree-holders, after the sale of the said goods by the executing Court. The judgment debtor is granted four months time to pay the balance of the decree debt found due as calculated above and it is only in case of default of payment by the judgment debtor within the said period of four months from today, the executing Court is at liberty to proceed further with the execution petition I for realization of the amount due. 23. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs.