IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH (24TH) DAY OF JUNE, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.549 of 2011 Between: Simhachala Panda … Petitioner And: Sri Trinadha Swamy Vari Temple & others … Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.549 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 02.12.2010 in IA No.298 of 2009 in OS No.184 of 1983 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Parvatipuram, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein under Order 20 Rule 12 and section 151 CPC for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, to ascertain the damages for use and occupation of the suit lands, for the period from the agricultural years 1999- 2000 to 2007-2008, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The first respondent herein-Temple filed suit OS No.184 of 1983 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of the suit land. The suit was initially dismissed. The appeal in AS No.1 of 1992 filed by the plaintiff was allowed on 22.04.1995 and the suit was decreed declaring that the temple has title to the schedule lands and also granting recovery of possession. In the said suit, it was further directed that the temple is entitled for recovery of future damages for the use and occupation of the lands from 1995-96 onwards from the defendants 1 and 2 by determining such damages on filing separate application. It is stated that the 2nd appeal preferred by the petitioner herein was dismissed and the SLP was also dismissed by the apex Court. The decree dated 22.04.1995 in AS No.1 of 1992 has thus attained finality. As per the directions contained in the decree, the temple filed IA No.298 of 2009 for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner to ascertain the damages for use and occupation of the lands for the period from 1998-99 to 2007-08. 4. Learned counsel for the first respondent-Temple submits that insofar as the earlier period from 1995-96 to 1998-99 is concerned, the damages were ascertained during the pendency of the second appeal and as per the directions of the Court, 50% of the damages, was also deposited by the petitioner herein. Be that as it may, the present application is filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to conduct enquiry and to ascertain the mesne profits for the subsequent period i.e., from 1999-2000 to 2007-08. 5. The only objection raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner filed OA No.77 of 2008 before the Deputy Commissioner, Endowments Department, Visakhapatnam, wherein the nature of the temple whether private or public is disputed and even the competence of the Managing Trustee to represent the temple is also questioned and that an interim stay was also granted in the said OA and the same is still pending. Pendency of the said OA nor grant of any such interim stay therein does not come in the way of Commissioner’s appointment to ascertain the mesne profits in pursuance of the decree in AS No.1 of 1992, which has attained finality. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the claim for the period from 1999-2000 onwards is barred by limitation. It is open to the petitioner to raise the said objection at appropriate stage of the proceedings after the report of the Commissioner is filed and there can’t be any tenable objection for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner for the purpose of ascertaining the damages for use and occupation of the lands. Therefore, the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner for the said purpose does not call for any interference. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 24.06.2011 bss