IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1438 OF 2008 Between: Dr.Ratnam and three others …Petitioners A n d T.Anjankumar Goud and four others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.1438 OF 2008 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 04-03-2008 in I.A.No.181 of 2005 in O.S.No.247 of 2002, on the file of the VI-Additional Senior Civil Judge (FTC), Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs. None appears for the respondent/defendants. Perused the records. 3. The petitioners herein filed a suit for permanent injunction against the respondents. Earlier, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.570 of 2002 for appointment of a Commissioner under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC to note down the physical features of the schedule property of four acres situate in Sy.No.222 of Gajularamaram village. By order dated 29-01-2003, the said application was allowed and an Advocate- Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the schedule land and also get both Sy.Nos.219 and 222 surveyed with the help of Government Surveyor. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners filed C.R.P.No.4310 of 2003. This Court, by order dated 16-03-2004, set aside the order of the trial Court to the extent it directed the Advocate-Commissioner to survey the land of the respondents/defendants in Sy.No.219 along with the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.222 and accordingly modified the order to read that the Advocate-Commissioner shall with the assistance of the Government Surveyor note down the physical features of the land of the petitioners in Sy.No.222 only. As seen from the said order, liberty was given to the respondents/defendants to file similar application for survey of their land if any need arises. Availing the said liberty, the respondents filed the present application in I.A.No.181 of 2005 for appointment of a Commissioner to localize the land and fix the boundary between Sy.Nos.219 and 222. By the impugned order, the said application was allowed in view of the liberty granted earlier to the respondents by this Court in the order dated 16-03-2004. 4. In view of the nature of the dispute between the parties, the appointment of Commissioner for localization and fixation of the boundary between Sy.Nos.219 and 222 with the assistance of Government Surveyor would certainly help the Court to adjudicate on the same in an effective and comprehensive manner. It is stated that the Advocate-Commissioner has already filed his report. If it is so, it is open to the petitioners and the respondents to file their objections, if any, to the Commissioner’s report. The appointment of Commissioner for the purpose stated in the impugned order cannot, therefore, be found fault with. The impugned order does not, therefore, call for any interference now at this stage. 5. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 06th June, 2011 Lrkm.