HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1135 of 2011 Date : 31.10.2011 Between : Kunduru Indira Devi (died), per L.R. …..Petitioner And V. Kanakaiah (died), per L.Rs. …..Respondents HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1135 of 2011 ORDER : This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, by the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.501 of 1989 on the file of the learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal, aggrieved by the order, dated 1st of March 2011, passed in I.A.No.127 of 2011. The petitioner is plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.501 of 1989. The said suit is filed for recovery of possession of plaint Part-I schedule property and also for mandatory injunction to remove and dismantle the structures in the portion of the plaint schedule, shown as Part-II. When the said suit was dismissed, matter was carried in first appeal in A.S.No.34 of 2002 before the learned IV Additional District Judge, Warangal. The said A.S.No.34 of 2002 was allowed by judgment and decree, dated 23rd of February 2004, and the case was remanded to the Court of II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Warangal. In the aforesaid judgment, directions were issued for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection of the lands covered by Survey Numbers 1210, 1211, 1212 and 1213 and to demarcate them with the assistance of competent surveyor from the office of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Hanamkonda. Pursuant to the judgment of the appellate Court, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed, who has submitted his report. Both the parties herein have filed their objections to the Commissioner’s report. After filing of objections, the present application was filed by the plaintiff in I.A.No.127 of 2011 under Order 26 Rule 10(2) read with Section 151 CPC, seeking permission to examine the Commissioner and Surveyor. The said application is allowed in part, by impugned order, dated 1st of March 2011, allowing the petitioner to examine the Advocate Commissioner, but rejected the application so far as the plea of the petitioner to examine the surveyor is concerned. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for respondents. In this civil revision petition, it is contended by Sri C.A.R. Seshagiri Rao, learned counsel for petitioner that as much as the report of the Commissioner is totally based on the assistance from the technical person i.e. surveyor attached to the office of the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records, Hanamkonda, it is necessary to examine the said witness for appropriate adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. It is submitted that though such relief is sought, the Court below, without recording valid reasons, rejected the claim of the petitioner to the extent of examining the surveyor. On the other hand, it is submitted by Sri G.Ramchandra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents that as much as the report is submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, there is no reason for seeking permission to examine the surveyor. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the judgment of the learned IV Additional District Judge, Warangal in A.S.No.34 of 2002 and also the impugned order passed by the trial Court. The lower appellate Court, while allowing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, directed the trial Court for appointment of Commissioner to make local inspection and demarcate the lands covered by Sy.Nos.1210, 1211, 1212 and 1213 of Kumarpally of Warangal District. Merely because the Advocate Commissioner has taken the assistance of the surveyor, petitioner cannot seek for examination of said surveyor. The Advocate Commissioner might have taken the assistance of a technical person, but ultimately, he is the author of the report which will be the part of evidence before the trial Court. In view of the provision contained under Order 26 Rule 10(2) of CPC, while it is open for the petitioner to seek permission for examination of the Advocate Commissioner who authored the report, but he cannot maintain a petition to examine the surveyor, who has given assistance to the Advocate Commissioner. Although it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that by allowing for examination of the surveyor no prejudice would be caused to the respondent/defendants, but in this case, it is to be noticed that when the report is authored by the Advocate Commissioner, there appears no reason for examining the surveyor. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has already filed objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s report and in view of the reasons recorded in the impugned order passed by the trial Court for allowing the examination of Advocate Commissioner and rejecting the claim of petitioner to examine the surveyor, I do not find any illegality in the said order, warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is also to be noticed that the petitioner has also filed I.A.No.1908 of 2010, to adduce further evidence from his side after objections were filed to the Commissioner’s report and the said I.A. is also ended in dismissal. For the aforesaid reasons, this revision petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 31st October 2011 ajr