HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No, 4588/2007 DT.26-11-2010 1. Gurrala Pandu Ranga Rao and others. …Petitioners V. 1. Gurrala Jhansi Lakshmi and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CRP No.4588/2007 ORAL ORDER: This revision under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the appellants in AS No.271/2005 to revise the orders passed dt. 25-9-2007 in IA No.812/2007 in AS No.271/2005 on the file of VII Additional District & Sessions Judge (FTC), Vijayawada, whereunder petition filed by the appellants under Order 26 Rule 9 and Sec. 151 CPC to appoint an advocate- commissioner to note down the physical features and identify the items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule properties with the help of concerned Mandal Surveyor, particularly any other property other than the plaint schedule properties, has been dismissed. The present IA seeking appointment of advocate-commissioner is filed at the appellate stage. In the affidavit filed in support of the said petition, it was stated that the evidence placed before the Honourable Court ie., Exs.B-1 to B-11 clearly established that the extent and the boundaries of the will schedule and the extent and the boundaries of the plait schedule properties are not tallied and there is difference between actual boundaries and extent of the paint schedule properties than that are mentioned in the alleged will and since there is controversy with regard to actual possession of items 1 and 2 of the plaint schedule property, it is necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features. Admittedly, no such plea has been taken by the appellants/defendants in the suit nor any issue is framed with regard to the discrepancy in the boundaries in the will corresponds to plaint schedule properties. When suit itself is filed for declaration with regard to plaintiffs right over the suit schedule properties, the question of possession is irrelevant and the trial court rightly dismissed the petition. The dismissal of petition filed for appointment of an advocate commissioner does not call for any interference warranting correction in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ___________________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J Date:26-11-2010 kmr