THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3512 of 2010 (Dated : 01-03-2011) Between: G.Bheemaiah S/o Chennaiah and others ..Petitioners A n d Pulimamidi Sujatha @ Archana …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3512 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 4.6.2010 passed in I.A.No.104 of 2010 in O.S.No.90 of 2005 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, whereby and whereunder, the learned Junior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioners/defendants under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC. 2. The respondent is the plaintiff and whereas the petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.90 of 2005. She filed the suit in respect of house plot to an extent of 235 Sq. yards in Survey No.181/P at Farooq Nagar village. According to the plaintiff, she purchased the said plot under registered sale deed dated 23.5.2005. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement claiming the house plot in Survey No.183. According to them, their house plots are in Survey No.183. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings. After examination of three witnesses on behalf of the petitioners as Dws.1 to 3, they filed I.A.No.104 of 2010 for appointment of an Advocate-commissioner to survey the land in Survey Nos.181, 183 of Farooq Nagar village with the help of a qualified surveyor. The said application has been resisted by the plaintiff. 3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that it is highly impracticable to survey and measure the entire lands in Sy.Nos.181 and 183 of Farooq Nagar village only to locate the exact location of suit plot measuring 235.5 sq. yards, and thereby, proceeded to dismiss the application, by order dated 4.6.2010. Hence, this revision by the petitioners/defendants. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners/defendants submits that appointment of an Advocate-commissioner to localize the suit property has become imminent in view of the dispute between the parties as to the survey number in which the suit plot is located. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-plaintiff submits that there is no dispute with regard to the survey number wherein the suit plot is located and therefore, the question of appointment of an Advocate-commissioner to measure open plots in Sy.Nos.181 and 183 does not arise. 7. As can be seen from the order impugned in the revision, the case of the respondent-plaintiff is that she purchased an extent of 235.5 sq. yards in Sy.No.181 of Farooq nagar village under a registered sale deed dated 23.5.205. The boundaries to the plot purchased by her have been specifically stated in the schedule. Both parties adduced evidence in support of their respective pleadings. It is nobody’s case that the suit plot is in Survey No.183. It is not the case of the petitioners that Sy.Nos.181 and 183 are adjacent plots or that the layouts of both the survey numbers are overlapping. In that view of the matter, I do not see any flaw in the order impugned in the revision. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.01-03-2011 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.3512 of 2010 (Dated : 01-03-2011)