THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No. 6026 of 2009 ORDER: The present civil revision petition is aggrieved against the order dated 2-12-2009 made in I.A.No. 1036 of 2009 in O.S. No. 7910 of 2004 on the file of Principal Rent Controller-cum-XII Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the request of the plaintiffs for appointment of advocate-commissioner was negatived. The revision petitioners are the petitioners/appellants and the respondents herein are the respondents/defendants before the trial court. The revision petitioners filed the above I.A., under Order 26 Rule 9 of C P C seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to make local inspection and to note down physical features of the space and constrictions made by the respondents on the western side portion of the premises no. 5.3.760 to 763 towards the schedule property on the ground that the respondents started illegal construction in the premises by encroaching upon the way and also constructing sajjas, windows and ventilators and also drainage pipe line in front side of the property of the plaintiff and that they made constructions by deviating the alleged sanctioned plan. The respondents therein resisted the application by filing a counter denying the allegations made in the affidavit and also stated that the plaintiffs previously filed IA 1591 of 2004 seeking interim injunction, but the same was dismissed and against which they preferred CMA 193 of 2005 and the same was also dismissed and later the another IA filed by them seeking to amend the relief of mandatory injunction was also dismissed and when a revision in CRP No.4086 of 2007 was filed aggrieved against the order in the above I.A., the same was also dismissed. It is also stated that the purpose of appointment of commissioner is no way connected to the relief of the suit and prayed to dismiss the petition. The court below after hearing on both sides and upon considering the material on record dismissed the petition. Aggrieved against the same, the present civil revision petition was filed. Heard learned counsel on either side. A perusal of the record goes to show that the suit was filed for bare injunction and that previously the plaintiffs made all efforts by filing petitions i.e., one for temporary injunction and another for mandatory injunction, and when they were dismissed, they preferred a revision and even the said revision was also dismissed. The record further shows that the suit was of the year 2004 and evidence on either side was closed and when it is coming up for arguments, the revision petitioners filed the above petition seeking appointment of advocate commissioner to have local inspection and to note down the physical features of the suit schedule premises along with another application for re-opening of the matter. As seen from the order of the trial court, it reveals that the alleged construction made by the respondents/defendants was already over and when the suit is at the stage of arguments, petitioners came up with the above applications which would serve no purpose except to protract the litigation. Therefore, in view of the above, I don’t see any merits in the present revision and the order needs no interference. Hence, the civil revision petition is dismissed. However, since the suit is of the year 2004 and is at the stage of arguments, the trial court is directed to dispose of the same, if not already disposed of, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. _____________________________ dt.17.12.2009 JUSTICE T MEENA KUMARI kvrk THE HON’BLE SMT.JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI Civil Revision Petition No. 6026 of 2009 17-12-2009