THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.669 of 2009 Dated: 17.11.2009 Between: K.Ramakrishna and another. .. Petitioners. And M/s. K.Rajamouli & Sons rep. by its Managing Partner Sri K.Suresh and others. .. Respondents ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order dated 07.01.2009 in I.A.No.5164 of 2008 in I.A.No.1386 of 2008 in O.S.No.529 of 2008 on the file of the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District. Petitioners herein are defendants 2 and 4 and respondent No.1 herein is the plaintiff in the suit being O.S. No. 529 of 2008 on the file of the I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, filed for perpetual injunction against the defendants restraining them and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property bearing M.Nos.4-6-81/A and 4-6-81/B situated in Attapur village, Rajendra Nagar Mandal of Ranga Reddy District. Along with the said suit, the plaintiff also filed I.A.No.1386 of 2008 seeking ad-interim injunction, which is said to have been allowed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the present I.A. No.5164 of 2008 in I.A.No.1386 of 2008 in O.S.No.529 of 2008, under Order 26 Rule 9 read with Section 151 of C.P.C., for appointment of Advocate Commissioner, to note down the physical features, including the structures and boundaries, and take photographs of the petition schedule property and to localize the petition schedule property with the help of a qualified Surveyor. Defendants 2 and 4 filed counter affidavit in the present I.A. resisting the claim of the plaintiff. The Court below, by the impugned order dated 07.01.2009, allowed the present I.A., appointing Sri M.Sreenivas, Advocate, as Commissioner to inspect the suit premises, make note of physical features and to take photographs, if necessary. Aggrieved thereby, this Civil Revision Petition is filed by defendants 2 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants submits that the 1st respondent/plaintiff by seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner, has sought to gather evidence on his behalf, which is impermissible in law. He submitted that the 1st respondent-plaintiff, who filed the suit for injunction, has to establish his case on his own, and he cannot take the assistance of Advocate Commissioner, to collect evidence on his behalf. However, the Court below without considering these aspects, allowed the application filed by the 1st respondent-plaintiff, seeking appointment of Advocate Commissioner, and that too without assigning any reasons whatsoever. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent- plaintiff supported the impugned order stating that on the date of the order under revision was passed, the petitioners-defendants were not present and, therefore, taking into consideration the submissions made by the 1st respondent-plaintiff, and considering the gravity of the situation, allowed the present application and appointed Advocate Commissioner, and by appointing an Advocate Commissioner, to note down the physical features of the suit property, it cannot be said that he will be collected evidence on his behalf. Hence, he submitted that the order under revision needs no interference and prayed that the C.R.P. be dismissed. On 12.02.2009, since it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners-defendants that the Court below without recording any reasons has allowed the present application, this Court directed the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy, to call for a report in relation to the order under revision. In compliance of the said directions of this Court, the learned District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, submitted report dated 28.02.2009 of the learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, who passed the impugned order. In the said report, it is stated that the present petition is not filed in injunction petition in I.A.No.1386 of 2008, but is filed in the main suit and that there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners-defendants on the date of passing of the impugned order i.e., on 07.01.2009. He further stated that since it was strongly urged by the learned counsel for the 1st respondent-plaintiff that the petitioners-defendants, under the guise of the injunction orders passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in another suit i.e., O.S.No.613 of 2008, filed by the petitioners-defendants subsequent to filing of the present suit, are changing the physical features of the subject property, and considering the gravity of the situation, and with a view to preserve the evidence, passed the impugned order appointing Advocate Commissioner, to note down the physical features of the property, and hence, it cannot be said that he has passed the order with a view to gather evidence for the 1st respondent-plaintiff. The order under revision, passed by the Court below, prima facie is without assigning any reasons, and even though the Court below, in his report, tried to justify the order under revision passed by him, but since the reasons so assigned in the report are not assigned in the impugned order, and the impugned order being bereft of any reason, the same cannot be sustained. Hence I deem it appropriate to pass the following order: The impugned order dated 07.01.2009 in I.A.No.5164 of 2008 in I.A.No.1386 of 2008 in O.S.No.529 of 2008 on the file of the I- Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, which is under revision is set aside, and the matter is remanded to the Court below for passing orders afresh, as per law, after issuing notice to both parties. Accordingly, the C.R.P. is allowed. No costs. _____________ N.V.RAMANA,J 17.11.2009 v v