THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3451 of 2010 Date: 20-8-2010 Between Kotapati Sreenivasa Reddy … Petitioner and Bommareddy Ravi Sekhar Reddy and 2 others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3451 of 2010 Oral Order: Heard both sides. 2. This civil revision petition is directed against the order and decree, dated 15-7-2010, passed by the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, Krishna district in dismissing the application I.A.No.322 of 2010 in O.S.No.971 of 2007 seeking appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property. 3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the suit before the trial Court. The suit was filed for permanent injunction. 4. It is the claim of the plaintiff that he is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction since he has been in possession of the suit schedule property in an extent of 266.66 square yards of vacant site in R.S.No.73/4 in Plot No.44, situated in Kundavari Kandrika village of Vijayawada. 5. It is the further contention that the defendants are also claiming different extent of land in the same Survey number. Therefore, appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner is imperative to be made to localize the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no dispute with regard to the different extent of land belongs to the defendants in the same Survey number. Therefore, he seeks appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to localize the suit schedule property. 7. But, it is to be seen that the suit schedule property is only a house plot but not a vacant land. In such a case, it is incomprehensible as to why an Advocate-Commissioner is to be appointed. One has to go out of the plot belonged to the plaintiff or the defendant, as the case may be, as established by both the parties by adducing evidence. 8. Further, it is also on record that the petitioner did not take any steps as to the localization of the suit schedule property during the course of trial i.e., during the course of examination of the witnesses. After completion of the evidence of both sides, when the matter was coming up for arguments, the present interlocutory application came to be filed. This conduct cannot be accepted by the Courts below, in normal course, unless the situation really warrants. 9. But, as could be seen from the order of the trial Court, there is no such warranting circumstances for the trial Court to order the interlocutory application. 10. Further, it is to be seen that this is a revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court need not necessarily go into all the aspects or exercise its supervisory jurisdiction by going into the details or material particulars of the suit and the suit schedule property. 11. In the event of failure of the contention of the petitioner in the suit, he has an alternative remedy in the shape of Section 105 of CPC, which permits the petitioner to raise this ground in the Memorandum of Grounds of Appeal and seek for appointment of an Advocate- Commissioner and upon such application being made, the appellate Court also can exercise its jurisdiction under Order XXVI, Rule 9 of CPC. 12. In view of the availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner and also in view of the fact that the suit is at the fag end of the trial and particularly when it is coming up for arguments, it is not desirable for this Court to interfere with the order passed by the trial Court. 13. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed, at the stage of admission, confirming the order under revision. ________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 20th August, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA Civil Revision Petition No.3451 of 2010 20th August, 2010. (Ak)