THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.4940 OF 2011 ORDER: The petitioner is the defendant in O.S.No.151 of 2005 filed by the sole respondent herein for perpetual injunction. It appears, the respondent alleged that the petitioner encroached his properties comprised in R.S.Nos.45/2 and 46 of Nandarada Village of Rajanagaram Mandal. Along with the suit, the respondent filed I.A.No.912 of 2005 to measure the suit schedule land with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. The said I.A. was allowed and an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. After giving notice to the parties, their counsel and with the help of Mandal Surveyor, Rajanagaram Mandal, the Advocate Commissioner executed the warrant on 24.01.2009. He submitted a report on 09.07.2009. In his report, he stated as under. “According to the surveyor’s plan given to me the encroachment in R.S.No.45/2 is Ac.1-12 cts and in S.No.46 is Ac.0-12 cts after measuring the lands of the petitioner and the respondent. The above encroachment is found by the Mandal Surveyor. At the request of the petitioner, the Surveyor measured others land (neighbour) and found that the other encroached Ac.0-02 cts of land of the petitioner shown in the sketch filed by the Mandal Surveyor (Field Measurement Sketch). According to the Plaint Schedule, the encroachment is Ac.0-37 cts but on ground when it was localised as per the Field Measurement Book, the encroachment found by the Mandal Surveyor is Ac.0-24 cts in R.S.No.45/2 and 46 and also found others encroached Ac.0-02 cts of the petitioner’s land.” As noticed supra, the Advocate Commissioner submitted report on 09.07.2009. More than two (2) years thereafter, the respondent filed I.A.No.437 of 2011 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), praying the Court below to re- entrust the warrant of the Commissioner with a direction to measure the land as well as the neighbouring lands in Survey Nos.45/2 and 46 with the help of documents and Field Measurement Book. In support of the application, an affidavit has been filed alleging that the Advocate Commissioner did not measure the neighbouring lands and therefore, it is necessary to re-entrust the warrant. The same was opposed by the petitioner. After considering the issue in detail, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the application is belated and that it was filed to protract the proceedings and accordingly, dismissed the same. In the CRP, the counsel for the petitioner submits that so as to know the alleged encroachment, it is necessary to measure all the lands surrounding to Survey Nos.45/2 and 46 and unless such measurement is undertaken by the Advocate Commissioner with the help of Mandal Surveyor, there cannot be any justification and the Advocate Commissioner did not conduct survey properly. After perusing the material placed on record and the impugned order passed by the Court of the IV Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry, this Court is convinced that the impugned order does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record, which cannot be corrected by the appellate authority as contemplated under Section 105 (1) CPC. Further, as seen from the impugned order, after the Advocate Commissioner submitted report in July 2009, again, with the consent of both the counsel, the warrant was re-entrusted on 24.08.2010 pursuant to which the Advocate Commissioner returned the warrant stating that the petitioner/defendant did not pay the requisite amount by challan for survey and did not turn up. Three (3) months thereafter, the petitioner filed another application being I.A.No.437 of 2011. This itself would show that there cannot be any justification for re-entrusting the warrant repeatedly. The Civil Revision Petition is devoid of any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 24th November 2011 RRB