HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY C.R.P.Nos.1663 and 1791 of 2011 Date : 20-8-2011 Between: Kathi Janamma w/o.Venkata Reddy .. Petitioner And Mallu Venkata Reddy s/o.Venkatappa Reddy .. Respondent Counsel for petitioner : Sri K.Narasimha Chari Counsel for respondent : Sri V.Raghu The court made the following: COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of common order dated 21-3-2011 in I.A.Nos.104/2011 and 105/2011 in O.S.No.401/2005 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Kodad. The petitioner is the plaintiff in the suit filed for permanent injunction. The petitioner filed I.A.No.580/2006 for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to measure the entire land in Sy.No.646/E1 with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, fix the boundary stones and note down the physical features. The said application was allowed by the court below by order dated 27-2-2007. After visiting the suit schedule property, the Advocate-Commissioner submitted his report dated 22-9-2008 stating that during the course of measurement, the respondent/defendant demanded to measure the land with the help of the tippon and that the Mandal Surveyor has stated that the tippon is not available with him and therefore the land could not be measured. The Advocate-Commissioner accordingly returned the warrant without executing the same. The petitioner/plaintiff thereafter filed I.A.No.157/2009 for appointment of another Advocate-Commissioner. The said application was dismissed on 27-10-2009. The petitioner/plaintiff thereafter filed I.A.No.533/2009 for issuing summons to the Advocate-Commissioner which was also dismissed on 11-2-2010. Subsequently, the trial was commenced and after completion of the evidence, the petitioner filed I.A.No.104/2011 for reopening the suit and I.A.No.105/2011 to redirect the Advocate-Commissioner to complete his job. After considering these applications, the trial court has dismissed the same. I have heard Sri K.Narasimha Chari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Raghu, learned counsel for the respondent. The lower court in its order has observed that after disposal of the previous applications, evidence was commenced and closed and that since the Advocate- Commissioner has returned the warrant on the ground of non-availability of the tippon with the Mandal Surveyor, the facts and circumstances do not justify reopening of the suit after completion of the trial and directing the Advocate- Commissioner to measure the land with the aid of the tippon. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that after the Advocate-Commissioner has returned the warrant, the tippon was traced and was available. Apart from the fact that the petitioner has allowed the trial to be completed and thereafter filed the two applications, in view of non- availability of the tippon, no purpose will be served in directing the Advocate-Commissioner to execute the warrant issued earlier. Therefore, I do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the court below warranting interference by this court in exercising its revisional jurisdiction. For the above mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed. ________________________ Justice C.V. Nagarjuna Reddy Date : 20-8-2011 AM