HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4009 of 2009 Between: Boghi Anjaneyaswamy. ..... PETITIONER AND The Executive Officer rep. Temple Srikakulam and others. .....RESPONDENTS HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 4009 of 2009 ORDER: Aggrieved by the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Srikakulam in I.A.No. 103 of 2009 in O.S. No. 110 of 2003 dated 30.04.2009, the present revision is filed. I.A.No. 103 of 2009 is filed by the petitioner herein under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. praying that an Advocate Commissioner be appointed for localization of the suit schedule property, and to note down the structures in the suit schedule property, in the interest of justice. The petitioner herein had earlier filed I.A. No. 233 of 2006 for appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of noting down the physical features of the suit schedule property, and the unauthorized constructions made by the defendants. On the ground that the Commissioner did not execute the warrant, nor did he submit a report, the present I.A. is filed. The Court below noted that the suit related to the year 2003; after issues were framed and the matter was coming up for trial, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff and certain documents were marked; and, when the matter was coming up for further evidence of the plaintiff, instead of adducing further evidence he had filed I.A. No. 232 of 2006 under Order 26 Rule 9 C.P.C. for appointment of a Commissioner; the Court had appointed the Commissioner to execute the warrant and to file a report; the docket showed that, in the month of June, 2006, the Commissioner was appointed by the Court and since then the matter was coming up for filing of the Commissioner’s report; though the Court had given 2½ years time, the Commissioner did not file his report; when the Court insisted that the Commissioner file his report it was represented that neither his fee was paid nor deposited, and even the process for appointment of the Commissioner was also not paid; on the basis of such representation the I.A. was closed on 06.02.2009 and the main suit was posted for further evidence; and, instead of adducing further evidence, I.A.No. 103 of 2009 was filed seeking the very same relief contending that the petitioner herein had, in fact, paid the Commissioner’s fee. The Court below observed that if the petitioner had really paid the Commissioner’s fee the petitioner would have obtained a receipt from the Commissioner and ought to have placed the same before the Court; he had failed to do so; and, in view of non-compliance of the orders of the Court in I.A.No. 232 of 2006, the present revision was filed which was but an attempt to drag on the proceedings further. Sri K.S. Gopala Krishnan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that under Order 26 Rule 15 C.P.C., the expenses of the Commissioner was required to be paid in Court and under Order 26 Rule 18B, the Court had to fix the time for return of the commission; and the petitioner could not be faulted for the lapse on the part of the Commissioner in submitting his report even after a period of 2½ years. Learned counsel would contend that the petitioner had, in fact, paid the fees of the Commissioner but, as was the practice in vogue, no receipt was given. The jurisdiction which this Court exercises under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is supervisory and not appellate. This Court would interfere only where failure to do so would result in manifest injustice or the order suffers from a patent illegality. The Court below has recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner herein had not produced any receipt in proof of the fact that the Commissioner’s fee had been paid, and the second I.A. seeking appointment of the Commissioner was but another attempt to drag on proceedings. While Order 26 Rule 15 C.P.C., does enable the Court to direct a party to deposit the expenses of the Commissioner with it, the Code does not prohibit fees being directly paid to the Commissioner. Likewise, failure on the part of the Court, under Order 26 Rule 18B, to fix the time for the return of commission matters little as it is not even the petitioner’s case that he had taken any steps to appraise the Court of the inordinate delay in Commissioner submitting his report to the Court. The petitioner’s assertion of payment being made to the Advocate Commissioner and his failure to issue a receipt, if true, would, at best, enable him to take action against the Advocate Commissioner concerned but does not, in any manner, render the order under challenge illegal necessitating interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Civil Revision Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J Date:16.02.2010 usd