IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2654 of 2011 Between: Garikapati Thirupathaiah & another. … Petitioners And N. Seshadri Rao Naik & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioners: Sri K. Rathanga Pani Reddy Counsel for the respondents: Sri M.V.P. Veera Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2654 of 2011 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition arises out of order and decree, dated 15.06.2011, in I.A.No.1050 of 2011 in A.S.No.86 of 2007 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Kurnool at Nandyal, whereunder and whereby the petition filed to appoint Advocate Commissioner to inspect the petition schedule property and the properties surrounding it as per the documents of title (Exs.A1 to A8, A35 and Exs.B1 to B14 and B18 to B38) and to note the features and submit his report, was allowed on the ground that there was a boundary dispute and for localization of the property, appointing of Advocate Commissioner is necessary. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on earlier occasion, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he filed his report, which was marked as Ex.A27; that after lapse of four years now the I.A. in question was filed without disputing the earlier commissioner’s report and that, therefore, appointment of fresh Advocate Commissioner is not warranted and he prays the Court to set aside the impugned order. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that since there is a boundary dispute between the petitioners and the respondents, in order to have a documentary evidence, the report that is going to be filed by the present Advocate Commissioner will be helpful to adjudicate the dispute between the parties so that the matter can be set at rest once for all. It is not in dispute before the Court below that the petitioners have filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. Basing on the evidence on record, the suit was decreed. Challenging the said decree and judgment, the unsuccessful defendants filed appeal before the appellate Court. After lapse of four years, during the pendency of appeal, the present application is filed to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property and the same was allowed. It is not in dispute before this Court that while the suit was pending, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed and he filed his report, which was marked as Ex.A27, along with plan, wherein he noted down the physical features of the property involved in the suit and that the respondents have not filed any objections against the said report. Therefore, the findings recorded by the earlier Advocate Commissioner have become final. Unless that report is not accepted or that report is incomplete, the question of appointment of second Commissioner for the same purpose may not arise. The receipt of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC is not routine or automatic. The respondents should establish before the Court below that their case falls in any one of the three clauses mentioned under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC. The present case does not fall in any one of the three clauses. Further more, when an Advocate Commissioner was already appointed and he filed his report, the question of appointment of a fresh Advocate Commissioner for the same purpose may not arise in view of the fact that the report filed by the earlier Advocate Commissioner when the suit was pending has become final and the parties are not disputing the said report. Under these circumstances, the Court below ought not to have appointed an Advocate Commissioner without recording the reasons, especially, when the report (Ex.A27) of the earlier Advocate Commissioner was already on record. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. _______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 12.09.2011 ES