IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA C.R.P.No : 5076 of 2009 Between: Mohd.Jalaluddin Akbar and others. ..... PETITIONERS AND State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its District Collector, R.R.District, Hyderabad and others. .....RESPONDENTS Order: The petitioners, who are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1505 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, filed this revision petition aggrieved by the docket order, dated 29.09.2009, passed by the learned Judge, which is to the following effect: “Commissioner Report not filed and not returned the warrant. Sri D.Ch.Pratap, one of the Advocate/Commissioner present. No report filed. He requested to further time. The Advocate/Commissioners were appointed on 26.06.2007. So far, no report filed and partly reportedly executed and counsels are not pursuing the cases diligently. PWs.1 to 8 and DWs.1 and 2 already examined in this batch cases i.e., O.S.Nos.1498/2004, 1499/2004, 1500/2004, 1501/2004, 1502/2004, 1503/2004 and 1504/2004. As per the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court this case has to be disposed by December, 2005, but it was not in the notice of this Court previously. Hence, it is dragged on. Hence evidence of this case is closed. For arguments, call on 01.10.2009.” The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once an Advocate Commissioner is appointed in the matter, he has to either submit his report or return the warrant. Though the Advocate Commissioner was appointed in the suit as long back as on 26.06.2007, he has not submitted his report or returned the warrant, without the report of the Advocate Commissioner, the trial Court, through the impugned docket order, closed the evidence and posted for arguments. It is his further contention that the petitioners are cooperating with the Advocate Commissioner, but the respondents are not cooperating with him. On the other hand, the learned Government Pleader for Arbitration appearing for the respondents submitted that even if the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the matter fails to file his report, the trial Court is at liberty to proceed further in the matter based on the material available on record and pass appropriate orders as it deems fit. Heard the learned counsel on record. At the outset, it is to be noted that once an Advocate Commissioner is appointed in a case, he has to submit his report after executing the warrant or return the warrant, if he has any difficulty in executing the same. In the case on hand, the Advocate Commissioner appointed has neither submitted his report nor returned the warrants. But, the trial Court having regard to the fact that the Supreme Court has directed early disposal of the case, has closed the evidence and posted the matter for arguments, in spite of the fact that the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the matter has neither submitted his report nor returned his warrants, though he was appointed as long back as on 26.06.2007. Across the Bar, it is submitted that the evidence in the case was closed as long back as in the year 2005, and the matter could not be proceeded further, for want of the report of the Advocate Commissioner. In the circumstances, it is appropriate to dispose of the civil revision petition with the following directions: The learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy, is directed to issue a notice to the Advocate Commissioner appointed in the matter calling upon him either to submit his report or return his warrant, in case he is unable to execute the warrant, immediately, within a period of two weeks. Based on such report/return of warrant, the learned Judge shall proceed further in the matter, without any further delay. The civil revision petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs. ___________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date:25.11.2009 VGB