THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.3021 of 2011 DATE: 06.09.2011 Between: V.Ramachander Rao and antoher. …Petitioners And Smt. Leena Prasad Rao and another. …Respondetns THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI Civil Revision Petition No.3021 of 2011 O R D E R : This revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.05.2011 in I.A.No.38 of 2011 in O.S.No.153 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the IV Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar. The revision petitioners/plaintiffs filed the suit against the respondents/defendants seeking a decree for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and also for perpetual injunction. The plaintiffs also filed I.A.No.2129 of 2004 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for local inspection and to measure the suit schedule land with the help of Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement and the same was allowed on 19.10.2009. However, the Advocate Commissioner so appointed could not initiate any steps for the survey and demarcation of the property and returned the warrant to the Court after one year. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed I.A.No.38 of 2011 seeking appointment of another Advocate Commissioner for conducting survey and demarcation of the suit schedule property. The said application was dismissed by the Court below by order dated 31.05.2011 and aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The material placed before this Court shows that the Advocate Commissioner appointed earlier in I.A.No.2129 of 2004 returned the warrant on 10.12.2010 stating that in spite of repeated requests made, the Assistant Director, Survey and Land Records did not depute the Survey Inspector on the ground that the Original file relating to the suit schedule property was not traced. Having taken note of the reasons stated by the Advocate Commissioner for his inability to execute the warrant, the Court below declined to appoint another Commissioner observing that since the entire evidence was available on record, the issues in the suit can be answered based on the said evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioners while placing reliance upon a decision of this Court in CHUKKA VENKATADRI v. MALLAVARAPU MAHALAKSHMAMMA[1] vehemently contended that the Court below ought not to have dismissed the application for appointment of another Advocate Commissioner as there was a controversy with regard to the identity and location of the suit property. The law is well-settled that the report of the Commissioner is not conclusive on the issue in controversy but it is only a piece of evidence. Admittedly, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed for the very same purpose of local inspection and measuring the suit schedule land with the help of the Assistant Director of Survey and Settlement. The fact that the said Commissioner could not conduct the survey for want of record has not been disputed by the plaintiffs. In the circumstances, as rightly held by the Court below, no purpose would be served by appointing another Commissioner for the very same purpose. Hence, the order under revision which did not suffer from any patent error of fact or law warrants no interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J Date: 06.09.2010 KLP [1] 2006 (3) ALT 353