IN THE HIGH Court OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE NINTH (9TH) DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4565 of 2010 Between: Jorigilla Malleshwari & 2 others … Petitioners And: Sara Balwant Raj … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.4565 of 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is directed against the order dated 08.09.2010 in IA No.992 of 2010 in OS No.1670 of 2009 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy district, wherein, the said application filed by the respondents herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of the Advocate-Commissioner, was allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. The petitioners herein filed suit for permanent injunction against the respondents. The respondent/defendant herein filed IA No.992 of 2010 for appointment of a Commissioner to find out whether the suit land is within the boundaries and measurements mentioned in the two registered sale deeds executed by the defendant’s father. According to the defendant, an extent of Ac.10.00 guntas of land situated in Sy.No.393/1 in Batasingaram village is the ancestral property and his father namely Satyanarayana died on 09.07.1990 leaving the defendant as his legal heir. According to the defendant, during the life time of his father, an extent of Ac.3.00 guntas of land, out of Ac.10.00 guntas, was sold to one Smt. S.Suseela, through registered sale deed dated 12.04.1985, and another extent of 20 guntas was also sold to the same vendee under another registered sale deed dated 29.07.1985 and the defendant, therefore, inherited an extent of Ac.6.20 guntas. The defendant claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the said land as original owner thereof. The defendant alleges that the alleged claim of possession made by the plaintiffs is false and the plaint schedule land is not in existence and the plaintiffs are not in possession of the alleged suit plots and the alleged suit plots are not within the boundaries of the land Ac.3.20 guntas in Sy.No.393. 4 . The petitioners herein filed a counter, opposing the application and contending that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule properties ‘A to D’, having purchased the same from the rightful owners under registered sale deeds and that the Gram Panchayat approved and sanctioned the joint plan for construction of houses. The plaintiffs also obtained electricity connection to the said houses and when the plaintiffs started construction of boundary wall as per the approved plan, the defendant tried to interfere with their possession and hence, they filed suit and obtained interim injunction. 5. As seen from the pleadings of both parties, the identity of the subject matter of the suit is in dispute and both parties claimed to be in possession and enjoyment of the subject matter of the suit. Though, the suit is filed only for permanent injunction, it is necessary that the identity of the property in respect of which the relief is to be granted or rejected, has to be established. When there is a dispute regarding location and boundaries, the appointment of a Commissioner to localize the disputed land after duly measuring the same with reference to measurements and boundaries mentioned in the respective title deeds would certainly help the Court in arriving at a just decision. 6. Having regard to the nature of the dispute pertaining to the suit land, the trial Court is justified in appointing an Advocate Commissioner to measure the suit land with reference to the registered sale deeds dated 12.04.1985 and 29.07.1985 said to have been executed by the defendant’s father in favour of S.Suseela, with the help of Mandal surveyor. It is open to the plaintiffs to serve the work memo on the Advocate Commissioner at the time of the execution of the warrant and also to file objections to the Commissioner’s report, if they are aggrieved by any observation contained therein. The plaintiffs, cannot however, oppose the appointment of a Commissioner, particularly, in a matter like the present one, where the subject matter of the suit has to be necessarily localized in view of the rival contentions of both parties. In the circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity so as to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. 7. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim stay granted earlier is vacated. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 09.02.2011 bss