THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4653 of 2009 ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner is the claimant, who filed E.A.No.251 of 2009 in E.A.No.274 of 2008 in E.P.No.157 of 2005 in O.S.No.51 of 2002 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Pakala. He stated that the first respondent filed the said suit for recovery of money and as the said suit was decreed in her favour on 04.08.2004, she filed E.P.No.157 of 2005 for realization of decretal amount of Rs.31,461/- and costs of Rs.2,057/- and for attachment of E.P. schedule property bearing Door No.8-6 situated at Pogathota, Pakala, Chittoor District. In the said E.P., the petitioner filed E.A.No.274 of 2008 stating that he is one of the sons of Krishnaiah; himself and other judgment debtors are the legal heirs of the said Krishnaiah and he got 1/5th share in the schedule property; that the land in Survey No.1249/A of Pakala Revenue Village belonging to Government was occupied by his father and constructed a house therein and subsequently, the Panchayat gave Door No.8-6 to it; that the said assigned property is not liable for attachment; that he is entitled to 1/5th share in the schedule property and that he is not a party to the suit and therefore, he prayed to decide the rights in respect of the house bearing door No.8-6 in Survey No.1249/A of an extent of Ac.0.01 cent. Pending disposal of the said E.A., he filed E.A.No.251 of 2009 for appointment of Court Commissioner to locate the E.P. schedule property with the assistance of Pakala Mandal Surveyor and also Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Pakala. The Court below opining that the appointment of Commissioner is not essential, dismissed the said application by its order, dated 03.07.2009, against which, this Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order of the Court below in dismissing E.A.No.251 of 2009 is illegal and erroneous and no prejudice will be caused, if the Commissioner is appointed for locating the E.P. Schedule Property. No doubt, the Court below dismissed E.A.No.251 of 2009 not on tenable grounds, but I am of the opinion that the Commissioner cannot be permitted to locate the E.P. Schedule Property with the help of revenue authorities viz., Mandal Surveyor and Secretary, as it amounts to gathering of evidence. However, it is for the petitioner to establish his right, title and interest over the E.P. schedule property independently by adducing appropriate evidence. Therefore, I do not see any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J 19th MARCH, 2010. kvni