THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3508 OF 2010 Dated 13th August, 2010 Between: Ganta Linga Reddy and two others …Petitioners And Ganta Narsi Reddy and another …Respondents The Court made the following ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against order dated 15.07.2010 passed in I.A.No.579 of 2009 in I.A.No.255 of 2008 in O.S.No.105 of 2008 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge at Bhongir, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the plaintiffs for appointment of the Commissioner. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the material brought on record. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the trial Court is not justified in appointing the Commissioner to gather the evidence as to who is in occupation of the premises in dispute. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners appears to be sound on the first blush but on close scrutiny of the records, I do not find any substance in his contention. The petitioners herein are the defendants and whereas the respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.105 of 2008. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction as well as mandatory injunction. They also moved I.A.No.255 of 2008 for temporary injunction. Pending enquiry in I.A.No.255 of 2008, they filed I.A.No.579 of 2009 for appointment of a Commissioner to note down the physical features of the property in dispute. In para 2 of the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated as hereunder: “That we filed suit for perpetual injunction and also for mandatory injunction in respect of Sy.No.431/ , admeasuring Ac.3.17 guntas, Sy.No.431/ , admeasuring Ac.3.16 guntas, total admeasuring Ac.6.33 guntas situated at Theriyala Village, Gundala Mandal, Nalgonda District against the respondents herein. Further it is submitted that the respondents are having land in Survey No.430 by abutting on the southern side of the suit land, by taking advantage the respondents illegally trespassed into our land and also encroached our land and constructed cattle shed with iron sheets by encroaching a width of 4 yards and 10 yards of length by fencing with flat stones around the cattle shed in our land in Sy.No.431. It is further submitted that such acts of the respondents are nothing but interfering into the peaceful possession of our lands and in order to occupy our land without permission they constructed cattle shed behind our back. Further it is submitted that the respondents are trying to interfere to erect the stone pillars by encroaching suit schedule land without having any right.” The averment in the affidavit is very clear that the purpose of appointment of the Commissioner is to note down the physical features of the suit schedule land. Indeed the learned Junior Civil Judge, having taken note of the averments in the affidavit, proceeded to pass the following order. “Heard both sides. Though, counsel for respondents, filed counter, submitted to allow the petition. Perused the petition. Petition is allowed, in the interest of justice. Mr.Laxmikanth Reddy, advocate is appointed as an advocate commissioner, to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and demarcate the boundaries with the help of Mandal Surveyor, if necessary. His fee is fixed at Rs.2000/- to be paid by the petitioners. Advocate Commissioner shall execute the warrant, after issuing notices to both counsel on record. Report by 23.08.2010.” The contention of the petitioners that the Commissioner has been appointed to gather evidence cannot be sustained in view of the specific direction to the Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property and demarcate the boundaries with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. I see no flaw in the order passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. A request has been made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to issue a necessary direction to the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.255 of 2008 expeditiously. In that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to dispose of I.A.No.255 of 2008 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dated 13th August, 2010 vrn