Judgment :- (1) At the request of both the counsels, the matter is taken up for final disposal. (2) The application filed under O. XXI, R. 35 read with S. 151 of C. P. C. by the 1st respondent/decree-holder for issuance of delivery warrant with a direction to the Surveyor to point out the boundaries of the properties and to complete the process of delivery of properties was allowed by the Executing Court. Hence, the present petition filed by the judgment-debtors No. 1 and 3. (3) Sri. Chandrahasa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contends that the boundaries of the properties have not been adequately identified- He further contends that it is not possible for the Surveyor to identify the boundaries of the properties and consequently to handover the properties to the decree-holder. He therefore prays that the Surveyor be directed to survey the boundaries of the properties and demark the same and the decree could be effectuated. (4) The counsel for the respondent No. 1 defends the impugned order. (5) f have heard both the learned counsels. While considering the application of the decree-holder, the trial Court came to the conclusion that when the Court had questioned the Surveyor, he had stated that since the measurement of the suit schedule properties exactly tallied at the spot, the decree could be executed. Hence, the trial Court did not find any impediment to allow the application. Further the decree having been confirmed by judgment dated 29-5-2008 in RFA No. 669/1999, the same could not be called in question by the Executing Court. Further while allowing the application, the Commissioner was directed to identify the boundaries of the properties in order to deliver the possession of the properties. Therefore, I find no error committed by the Executing Court in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is in accordance with law and in consonance with the facts of the case. (6) For the aforesaid reasons, the revision petition being devoid of merits is accordingly rejected.