THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2434 OF 2010 ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order, dated 27.04.2010, in I.A.No.17 of 2010 in O.S.No.91 of 2004 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, whereunder and whereby, the petition, filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to locate Survey Nos.120/18, 120/19, 120/20 and 120/21, situated at Arepalli Village with the assistance of Surveyor and also to locate the lands claimed by the petitioner and respondents with reference to the boundaries given by them and to note down the physical features existing in the said lands i.e., lands claimed by the petitioner and the respondents and also to give maps reflecting the actual location of lands on the spot, was dismissed on the ground that for noting down the physical features in a suit for injunction simplicitor, appointment of Commissioner is not necessary. 2. Heard both sides. 3. The suit is filed for perpetual injunction. The boundaries have been shown in the schedule. The respondents/defendants have not disputed about the physical features of the boundaries mentioned in the schedule. The contention of the respondents is that they are in possession of the property; that recording of the entire evidence is completed and at that stage the present petition is filed by the petitioner. There must be some purpose for appointing an Advocate Commissioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of this Court in P. Pedda Saidaiah v. T. Padmavathi[1], wherein it is held thus: “From the narration it is seen that whether any of the petitioners in the revision petition encroached upon the land belonging to the respondent or the respondent is claiming more than what he has purchased by registered sale deed dated 5-11-1973. The issue can be effectively settled by getting the lands owned by the petitioners as well as the respondent surveyed by the revenue authorities with the help of a village map and also tippons if they are available with the revenue authorities. By doing so, the litigation can be put to an end. But the Subordinate Judge by taking a technical ground dismissed the application which is not in accordance with law. On the other hand, I feel it is the duty of the Court to dispose of the interlocutory applications filed by the parties during the pendency of the suit within a reasonable time. Having failed in discharge of its duty the Court cannot put the litigent to sufference.” That is a case where the respondent therein is claiming more than the land she has purchased under a registered sale deed and that the petitioners therein encroached into the land of respondent therein. But, that is not the issue to be decided in the present case. 5. The physical features of the suit schedule property are not in dispute. The purpose for which an Advocate Commissioner is sought to be appointed, has not been specifically stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition. Whether the petitioner is in possession of the property in respect of the said lands as per the schedule and he has got a title to the property or not, can be decided by adducing necessary evidence. Though the petitioner simply stated that it is necessary to note down the physical features of the lands claimed by him and the respondents, when the physical features of the suit schedule property is not in dispute, the question of appointing an Advocate Commissioner does not arise. That is the reason why the trial Court rightly dismissed the application. The impugned order needs no interference by this Court. 6. Accordingly the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J October 26, 2010 MD IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2434 OF 2010 Between: Kavvampalli @ Dealer Chandraiah .....PETITIONER AND Swargam Rajendranath and others ....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2434 OF 2010 October 26, 2010 [1] 1997 (5) ALT 818