THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.5309 of 2010 Dated: 03-12-2010 Between: Divvela Subbayamma ………..Petitioner and Gunda Padmvathi …………Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.R.P.No.5309 of 2010 ORDER : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 23-09-2010 in I.A.No.964 of 2010 in O.S.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Narasaraopet. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the respondent filed a suit in O.S.No.4 of 2006 seeking permanent injunction restraining the petitioner from ever interfering with her possession and enjoyment over the suit schedule property. The petitioner filed a counter claim for recovery of 24 square yards of site encroached by the respondent. The Court below appointed an advocate-commissioner and he filed his report also. While so, the petitioner filed the present application seeking reappointment of advocate-commissioner on the ground that earlier, the commissioner has failed to take measurements of the respective houses without reference to the boundaries mentioned in the title deeds. The Court below dismissed the said application holding that since the petitioner accepted the report of the Commissioner and availed the cross-examination, she cannot seek again for appointment of Commissioner. 3. The appointment of Commissioner is purely discretion of the Court as per the provisions under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC. If there is any grievance with regard to the report submitted by the Commissioner, with the permission of the Court, any of the parties to the suit may examine the Commissioner personally in open Court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in his report or as to the manner in which he has made the investigation. In the present case, the report of the Commissioner was accepted by the petitioner and she availed his cross-examination. Thereafter, she filed the present application seeking reappointment of Commissioner. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be permitted to seek again for the appointment of Commissioner at this stage. I do not see any illegality or legal infirmity in the order passed by the Court below and therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________ December 03, 2010 kvr