THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.3901 of 2009 ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed questioning the order passed in I.A.No.401 of 2008 in O.S.No.269 of 2007 dated 4.6.2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gudur, Nellore district. Petitioner is plaintiff and respondents are defendants in the suit O.S.No.269 of 2007, which was laid for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. The respondents filed written statement stating that the description of the properties given in the plaint schedule is incorrect and plaintiff is not aware of the physical boundaries of the properties and the plaintiff has not filed any document to prove his contention regarding his title and possession over the property. The plaintiff has voluntarily suppressed the facts of prior partition dated 17.6.1951 by his father and also partition dated 15.4.1982 with his brothers and conveniently not filed the partition list of properties executed on 15.4.1982. It appears, the petition filed by the petitioner for issuing prohibitory orders against the respondents is at the stage of enquiry where the respondents have filed as many as (8) documents along with partition list as well as settlement deed and the petitioner has to rebut the evidence adduced by the respondents-defendants. At this stage, petitioner has come up before the Court for appointment of Commissioner for noting down the physical features and existing features of the plaint schedule property with the help of mandal surveyor. The said application was resisted by the respondents-defendants by filing counter stating that the plaint schedule property was submerged in the Kandaleru River Project and the Government notified the names of respondents as owners of the property. Petitioner stalled the compensation amount to be paid to the respondents at the time of hearing of I.A.No.705 of 2007 and has filed the present application only to drag on the matter. Further, there is no necessity of appointing a Commissioner since the suit itself is for partition of the properties. After hearing both the parties, the trial Court dismissed the petition stating that the petitioner has not filed any document to prove his claim as to title and possession of the property. In his suit for partition, petitioner has to prove his entitlement of share in the properties and at the stage of interim application, there is no necessity of noting down physical features and measuring the same with the help of mandal surveyor. Aggrieved by the said order, the present C.R.P. is filed. The learned counsel for petitioner strenuously contended that in the written statement, the respondents-defendants have taken a plea that the suit schedule property is not properly described, which necessitated the petitioner to file the present application seeking appointment of Commissioner. Whereas the learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that the land was already submerged in Kandaleru River Project and compensation was decided. Be that as it may, in a suit for partition, even assuming that the petitioner is entitled for a share in the property and even the share is decided, there is no necessity of appointing a Commissioner to find out metes and bounds of the said property, which was already submerged in the Project. Under those circumstances, I am of the opinion that the trial Court has not committed any error calling interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The C.R.P. is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 5.10.2009 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.3901 of 2009 5.10.2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU C.R.P.No.3901 of 2009 Date: 5th October, 2009 Between: Malireddy Krishna Reddy .. Petitioner And Thalamanchi Sujathamma & others. .. Respondents