THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P No.3152 of 2010 Date:31.12.2010 Between: Kadempally Jyothirmayee. ………...Petitioner. And A.Narsimulu and others. …… Respondents. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P No.3152 of 2010 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 1.7.20010 passed in I.A.No.116 of 2010 in O.S.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Shadnagar, whereby and whereunder the learned Junior Civil Judge allowed the application filed by the defendants seeking appointment of a Commissioner to note down the physical features and also to measure the land. 2. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.78 of 2009. She filed the suit for injunction simplicitor against the respondents/defendants. The claim of the petitioner/plaintiff is that she has been in possession and enjoyment of Ac.10.22 guntas in Sy.No.274 situated at Rangapur Village, Kothur Mandal, Mahaboobnagar District. She also moved I.A.No.364 of 2009 seeking temporary injunction. The defendants resisted the said application and pleaded that the total extent of Sy.No.274 is Ac.17.13 guntas and after disposing of Ac.15.23 guntas, they retained Ac.1.30 guntas. Whereas, the plaintiff contended that the total extent is only Ac.15.23 guntas and out of which, she acquired Ac.10.22 gunats. The trial Court, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, proceeded to allow I.A.No.364 of 2009 by order dated 1.7.2010. The relevant portion of the impugned order reads as hereunder: “On careful perusal of the documents of the respondents under Exs.B1 to B9, it is clear that the respondents are claiming the rights over the excess land of Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.No.274 after leaving the extent sold by the respondents 1 and 2. It is already observed supra, that there is no document before this Court to show that the extent of Sy.No.274 is Ac.17- 10 gunats, but not Ac.15-23 gunats only. No sketch plan, survey report or any other documents are placed before this court by the respondents to prove that there is any excess extent in Sy.No.274 is available and that the said excess land is in their possession by the time of filing of this suit. No Pahani or other record is placed by the respondents to show their cultivation of any such excess extent or about any respondents to show their cultivation of any such excess extent or about any raising crops. Since the Assistant Director (S.&LR) himself cancelled the earlier supplementary setwar issued in respect of the land in Sy.No.274, the subsequent proceedings i.e issuance of patta pass book and title deed in favour of the respondent No.1 on the strength of said supplementary setwar got no much evidentiary value. Moreover, the Hon’ble High Court was pleased to direct the Status-quo in respect of the entries in the revenue records as on 10.11.2009 by which date the supplementary setwar was withdrawn and the direction was given to the Tahsildar not to implement the supplementary setwar as directed by the survey authorities. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the contention of the respondents that they are in possession of excess extent of Ac.1-30 guntas in Sy.No.274 apart from the land sold to the petitioner is not acceptable, and therefore I find no force in the contention raised by the respondents.” 3. The learned Junior Civil Judge, on the same day, allowed I.A.No.116 of 2010 filed by the defendants and appointed an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit land and also to measure it. The said order is assailed in this revision by the plaintiff. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff and learned counsel appearing respondents/defendants. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that I.A No.364 of 2009 filed by the petitioner/plaintiff came to be allowed with specific observation that the defendants failed to place on record the total extent of Sy.No.274 as Ac.17.13 guntas and having made such an observation, the trial Court is not justified in allowing the application filed by the defendants for appointment of a Commissioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants submits that the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner has become eminent in view of the dispute with regard to the total extent of Sy.No.274. 7. The petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit claiming Ac.10.22 guntas in Sy.No.274 with specific boundaries. The total extent of Sy.No.274 is immaterial for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. There is no need to appoint an Advocate Commissioner in the circumstances of the case, to note down the physical features of the suit land and even if physical features of the suit land are noted, they are in no way helpful for proper adjudication of the issue involved in the suit. The trial Court having made specific observation in I.A.No.364 of 2009 with regard to the latches on the part of the defendants in placing prima facie proof as to the total extent of Sy.No.274 is Ac.17.13 gunats ought not appointed commissioner to note the physical features and to measure the suit land. 8. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 01.07.2010 passed in I.A.No.116 of 2009 in O.S.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge at Shadnagar and consequently I.A.No.116 of 2009 shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:31.12.2010 mrb