THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. Nos. 5086 & 5088 of 2010 Dated. 19–11-2010 C.R.P.No. 5086 of 2010 Between: The State of A.P., rep., by the Collector, East Goavari District, Kakinada and another. …Petitioners Vs. Vasireddi Gopala Krishna Murthy …Respondent C.R.P.No. 5088 of 2010 Between: The State of A.P., rep., by the Collector, East Goavari District, Kakinada and another. …Petitioners Vs. Saladi Mohan Kumar …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.Nos. 5086 & 5088 of 2010 ORAL COMMON ORDER: These revisions are directed against the order dated 23-08-2010 of the learned II-Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada, rejecting I.A.No. 823 of 2010 in O.S.No. 162 of 2004 and I.A.No.766 of 2010 in O.S.No. 75 of 2004 respectively. The revision petitioners are defendants in the respective suits filed by the respective respondents in these revisions seeking recovery of possession and permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners from interfering with the respective suit schedule properties. Earlier on applications filed by the respondents (plaintiffs), advocate commissioners were appointed who filed their reports in the suits. The revision petitioners lodged their objections to those reports as the advocate commissioners allegedly did not execute the warrants properly. The revision petitioners thereafter filed the present applications, again seeking appointment of advocate commissioners in the suits for measuring the plaint schedule properties and adjoining lands covered by survey Nos. 57 and 52 respectively of Rayudupalem, for ascertaining the extent of encroachment, if any, alleged to be by the revision petitioners, with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor. The Court below and rightly held that the applications are misconceived since there are already commissioners reports on record and the present applications constitute an attempt by the revision petitioners/defendants in the suit to gather evidence through the advocate commissioners. This Court discerns no error in the application of law or in exercise of discretion by the Court below, warranting interference in these revisions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. There are no merits and the revision petitions are accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 19-11-2010 Pvks/*