IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.917 OF 2011 Between: Mohammad Khairath Ali …Petitioner A n d Yerukala Pochaiah and two others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.917 OF 2011 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 17.02.2011 in I.A.No.144 of 2010 in O.S.No.81 of 2009, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Sircilla, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner herein, the plaintiff, under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner to demarcate Sy.Nos.615/7 and 615/9 and to report whether the respondents/ defendants constructed the house and compound wall in the suit land in Sy.No.615/7, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record 3. It is not disputed that previously in another suit O.S.No.18 of 1982, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Jagitial, the disputed land which is the subject matter of the present suit, was also got surveyed by appointing Assistant Director of Survey as Commissioner and the report of the said Commissioner was accepted by the Court and the said suit O.S.No.18 of 1982 was dismissed and an appeal preferred against the same in A.S.No.6 of 1994 was also dismissed. It is also not disputed that the earlier suit was in respect of the same land and in between the same parties or their representatives in interest. When the suit land has already been subjected to survey and the report of the Assistant Director of Survey was accepted by the Court in O.S.No.18 of 1982 and the finding recorded therein in respect of the observations made in the report of the Commissioner has attained finality with the dismissal of the appeal, the question of getting the same land again surveyed by appointing another Commissioner in the present proceedings, does not arise. The objections filed by the petitioner herein to the said report filed in O.S.No.18 of 1982 were also duly considered by the trial Court and appellate Court in the said matter and rejecting the same, the Commissioner’s report was accepted. Hence, the request of the petitioner/plaintiff for appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of surveying the same land once again in the suit, is unsustainable. The impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 4. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. Interim stay stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 15th July, 2011 Lrkm.