THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.5373 of 2007 ORAL ORDER: Heard both sides. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 02.11.2007, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge (Fast Track Court), Gudivada, Krishna District, dismissing the application in I.A.No.198 of 2007 in O.S.No.167 of 2005, filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to appoint an Advocate as Commissioner to get the site of the petitioner and Railway property at the southern side of petitioner’s house measured with the help of a surveyor and to submit a report and plan, in the interest of justice. 3. The petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit. 4. For the sake of convenience, in this order, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the suit. 5. The suit was filed for declaration of title and for consequential injunction. 6. It is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff that adjacent to the disputed property there is land belonging to the defendants-Railways and if the disputed wall is allowed to be constructed, the same would run across the house belonging to the plaintiff. Therefore, in order to verify as to whether the disputed land really belongs to the defendants- Railways or not, it is necessary that an Advocate-Commissioner be appointed and as such, the present application came to be filed before the trial Court. 7. The trial Court, having perused the petition and counter and hearing both sides, dismissed the said application, recording the reasons, which are extracted hereunder: - “Perused the petition and counter and noticed that the evidence of both sides was closed and posted for arguments on 01.10.2007. It is noticed that respondent department has conducted joint survey of the disputed site as per Ex.B-1-plan. It is noticed that the Railway departmental surveyor has taken the assistance of surveyor of Gudivada Municipality to demark the Railway property and constructed the compound wall all along on either side of the Railway property except the suit schedule property. As joint survey was already conducted by issuing notice to the plaintiff-petitioner, this petition becomes redundant. It appears the petitioner-plaintiff wants to drag on the matter and by hook or crook and there are no merits in the above petition.” 8. From the above, it appears that the trial Court was of the considered view that a survey was already conducted and the property of the defendants-railways was identified and demarcated. Therefore, there is no need to make any further survey as sought for by the plaintiff, and accordingly, the said application, filed by the plaintiff, was held to be redundant. 9. The jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C., is discretional, in which case, this Court cannot curve out a way in which the trial Court should proceed with the trial of the suit. 10. While exercising the revisional jurisdiction, any view expressed, or any conclusion made, or arrived at, by this Court cannot be conclusive. On the other hand, the trial Court can always arrive at a different conclusion altogether upon going into the merits of the case and basing on the evidence on record. 11. Further more, the impugned order cannot be treated as an order, which would really shut down all the remedies that are available under law to the plaintiff. It is always open for the plaintiff, if the outcome of the suit is adverse to his interest, to challenge the same by way of an appeal and the rejection of the present application can always be taken as a ground, as postulated under Section 105 C.P.C., in the grounds of such an appeal. 12. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be treated as the end of the road for the plaintiff to proceed further and safeguard his interest. 13. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this Civil Revision Petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 14. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. 15. However, it shall not be understood that this Court has expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, and, as already observed, the trial Court has to record its view on the basis of the merits of the case. _____________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 27th November 2009 dr