THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1394 OF 2010 ORDER: The petitioner, who is the third appellant in A.S.No.56 of 2007 filed I.A.No.183 of 2010 for issuing summons to Municipal Surveyor, who prepared the plan and submitted to the Court, to give evidence. On dismissal of the said I.A., he filed the present revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, assailing the correctness of the order 22.02.2010 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Amalapuram, East Godavari District, in the above said I.A. Admittedly, the petitioner, who is the plaintiff, filed the suit for declaration of right title and interest, and also for delivery of possession over Ac.0.03 cents in R.S.No.703/18 mentioned in ‘B’ schedule property and for consequential injunction against the first respondent. On lower Court decreeing the suit partly, declaring the title and interest over an extent of Ac.0.03 cents only in R.S.N.703/11 instead of Ac.0.33 cents, the petitioner carried the matter in appeal in A.S.N.56 of 2007. Pending the appeal, the II Additional District Judge, East Godavari District, had a local inspection on 21.03.2009 in the presence of the petitioner, the first respondent and their advocates, after securing the assistance of Municipal Surveyor, Amalapuram Municipality, and after localizing the fields and sub-divisions, took measurements with the help of the surveyor and fixed the points of demarcation of the plots of the parties with reference to the sale deeds of the respective parties as regards the land in R.S.No.703/18 of Amalapuram. On the basis of the local inspection conducted by the Presiding Officer, a plan was drawn by the Municipal Surveyor to which objections were also filed by the appellant. Thereafter the appellant filed the present I.A. to summon the Municipal Surveyor to give evidence. The lower Court dismissed the I.A. On dismissal of the same, the present revision petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that when the Surveyor prepared a plan with reference to the measurements of the land, his evidence is necessary to substantiate the plea and the objections raised by the petitioner and hence the petition filed by the petitioner ought not to have been dismissed. I do not see any force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that pending the suit an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, and he filed a report. Since the Court itself felt that the evidence adduced by the parties is not sufficient to have clear measurements, it has inspected the suit schedule property with the help of the Surveyor in the presence of the parties, obtained a plan, and prepared a report. As the plan is prepared by the Court on its own with the assistance of the Surveyor, summoning of Surveyor and questioning or examining him by the Court to disprove the report, does not arise. In view of the same, the discretion exercised by the lower Court in dismissing the I.A., does not suffer from any illegality warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ (A. GOPAL REDDY, J.) 9th April, 2010 Js.