THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.3780 of 2011 11th October, 2011 Between :- Kante Jagan Mohan .. Petitioner And Yerva Prasad .. Respondent THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.3780 of 2011 ORDER:- This revision has been filed against the order dated 22-7- 2011 passed in I.A.No.99 of 2011 in O.S.No.62 of 2011 on the file of the Family Court-cum-VI-Additional District Judge, Kadapa, whereby and where-under the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application filed by the plaintiff under Order XXVI Rule 9 of C.P.C. The petitioner is the plaintiff and whereas the respondent is the defendant in O.S.No.62 of 2011. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction. The plaintiff moved I.A.No.99 of 2011 under Order XXVI Rule 9 C.P.C. to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner and to note down the physical features and to measure the suit schedule property. The said application has been resisted by the defendant by filing counter. The learned Additional District Judge on hearing the Counsel appearing for the parties and considering the material brought on record, proceeded to dismiss the application by order dated 22-7-2011. Hence, this application. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent encroached the suit schedule property and proceeding with the construction and therefore appointment of Commissioner is required to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supported the order impugned in the revision. The petitioner stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.99 of 2011 that the respondent encroached the suit schedule property and proceeding with the construction. The respondent admitted of his putting up constructions in the property. The question whether the constructed area belongs to the petitioner or the respondent is required to be adjudicated in the suit. When the respondent specifically pleaded in the counter that he has already made construction, there is no need of appointing Commissioner to note down the physical features. The Trial Court is justified in dismissing the application. I do not see any valid ground to interfere with the Order impugned in revision in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 11th October, 2011 smr