THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.6018 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed O.S.No.448 of 2006 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Adoni, for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession. On earlier occasion, respondents filed I.A.No.19 of 2009 with a request to appoint Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit schedule property. The I.A. was allowed. During the course of execution, the Commissioner has not only measured the suit schedule property but also the property held by the respondents as well as by the petitioner separately. While the suit property and the one, owned by the respondents/defendants were measured with reference to the relevant documents, the property of the petitioner was measured as per the physical measurements and no reference was made to the title deed on the ground that it was not filed by the petitioner. The petitioner filed I.A.No.1358 of 2009 with a prayer to re-entrust the warrant to the same Commissioner or to appoint another Commissioner to measure his property with reference to the title deed. The trial Court dismissed the I.A. through order, dated 20.11.2009. Hence, this revision. Heard Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B. Vijayabhaskar, learned counsel for respondent No.1. The advocate Commissioner was appointed at the instance of the respondents though the suit was filed by the petitioner herein. In addition to measuring the suit schedule property with reference to the document, that is furnished by the Court itself, the Commissioner has measured the property hold by the respondents with reference to the document furnished by him. The petitioner made similar request to measure his property, which obviously appears to be abutting the suit schedule property. Since the relevant title deed was not furnished, the Commissioner measured it by taking the physical measurements. That was made part of the report. The petitioner submits that the title deed for the property and the measurements of the property with reference to the title deed would be helpful. Firstly, the property, which is sought to be measured, does not appear to be part of the suit schedule. Secondly, assuming that there are discrepancies as to the measurements, the petitioner can file objections and prove his case during the course of trial. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order, dated 20.11.2009. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J Date:06.12.2010 sj