IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.8 of 2010 Between: Varadarajulu Radhakrishna Pushpavathi. … Petitioner And Mattaparthy Lokeswara Rao. … Respondent This Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.8 OF 2010 ORDER:- Petitioner/plaintiff is in revision against the orders of the I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry dated 16.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.1079 of 2009 in O.S.No.166 of 2009, whereby the petition for re-entrustment of the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner, has been dismissed. It is not disputed that the petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit schedule property; for possession of the same and for removal of the western side encroachments made by the respondent/defendant, in which two commissioners were appointed in I.A.Nos.935 of 2005 and 569 of 2008 and the Commissioners after executing the warrant and measuring the property, filed their report, mentioning the actual measurements. While so, the defendant, who got appointed another Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.136 of 2009, also filed a report. Thereafter, when the matter is coming for further evidence of the defendant, the defendant reported no further evidence and the matter was posted for rebuttal evidence on the additional issues of the plaintiff’s side in counter claim as pleaded by the plaintiff, in which the plaintiff filed additional affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief and when it was posted for cross-examination on 25.11.2009, he filed the above I.A., for re-entrustment of the warrant to the same Advocate Commissioner contending that the Advocate Commissioner in I.A.No.136 of 2009 in a haste and to suit the convenience of the defendant filed a wrong report by noting the wrong measurements and the said measurements do not tally with the measurements noted by the earlier two commissioners. The trial court dismissed the said I.A. on the ground that if there are any deviations in the earlier two reports filed by the commissioners and the present report, the same can be taken into consideration at the time of hearing and the petitioner is at liberty to call the Advocate Commissioner as a Court witness, since he has already filed his objections to the reports, the same will be considered at the time of hearing. Therefore, there is no necessary for re- entrustment of the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner. Questioning the correctness of the same, the present revision is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that re-entrustment of the warrant to the same Commissioner to note down the features, is only to see that the correct report is filed and therefore, the trial court ought to have re- entrusted the warrant. I see no merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel of the petitioner. Since earlier two reports were filed by the commissioners appointed in I.A.Nos.935 of 2005 and 569 of 2008 and as the suit is of the year 2005, if every time the measurements are not tallying, the parties cannot go on insisting the Court for reappointment of fresh commissioner for re-entrusting the warrant, till he gives a report suitable to the parties. In view of the same, unless the commissioners’ reports filed earlier are conceded, the relief claim cannot be granted. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 11th February 2010 lmv