THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1052 OF 2011 Dated: 28.07.2011 Between: T.Sridhar and 7 others … Petitioners AND M.Venkataratnam and another …. Respondents … Respondents This Court made the following : THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G.ROHINI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1052 OF 2011 ORDER: The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.389 of 2007 on the file of the Court of the Junior Civil Judge, Medchal, Ranga Reddy. The suit is filed for injunction restraining the defendants/respondents herein from interfering with the plaint schedule property. While the matter was coming up for the defendants’ evidence, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.187 of 2011 under Order 26 Rule 6 of C.P.C with a prayer to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property including the structures, if any, on the property. It was pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the application that it was necessary to appoint an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features in view of the deposition of DW.1 in his cross- examination that no room was existing in the suit schedule property. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 05.03.2011 observing that the pleadings of the petitioners nowhere disclosed the existence of the room. Aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed. Heard the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material available on record. Learned counsel for the petitioners while relying upon the decision of this Court in Shaik Zareena Kasam v. Patan Sadab Khan and others[1], contended that when there is a dispute regarding boundaries/ physical features of the property, the appointment of the commissioner for noting the physical features can be ordered and it is not desirable to dismiss an application on the ground of delay in filing it. There can be no dispute with regard to the ratio laid down in the above decision. However, this is a case where the petitioners never pleaded about the existence of the room in question and thus, it cannot be said that there is any dispute regarding the physical features of the property. In the circumstances, the Court below had rightly dismissed the application and the interference by this Court is not warranted on any ground whatsoever. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 28.07.2011 Ivd [1] 2011 (4) ALD 231