IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST [1ST] DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN Present: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.2929 of 2007 Between: Smt. Chavali Janaki … Revision Petitioner And: Vijayawada Guntur Tenali Urban Development Authority Rep. by its Vice Chairman, Vijayawada & another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CRP No.2929 of 2007 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 20.06.2007 in IA No.662 of 2006 in OS No.537 of 2001 on the file of the III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Vijayawada, wherein the said application filed by the first respondent herein under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to make local inspection and to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule building, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein-plaintiff filed suit challenging the notice issued by the first respondent-Municipal Corporation alleging certain deviations from the approved plan in the matter of construction of the suit building. The petitioner denies that there were any such deviations from the approved plan. Whereas the respondents-defendants contended that the plaintiff obtained permission for construction of ground, first and 2nd floor for residential purpose and in violation of the same, plaintiff constructed a hospital against the sanctioned plan and she also raised 3rd floor and cellar portion unauthorisedly. It is stated that during cross-examination of PW.1-plaintiff denied the suggestion to that effect, though was confronted with the photographs. The 2nd defendant-Corporation therefore filed IA No.662 of 2006 for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to make local inspection and to note down the physical features of the suit building. The petitioner/plaintiff opposed the same on the ground that the defendants cannot be permitted to gather the evidence under the guise of local inspection by the Advocate-Commissioner. The learned Additional Senior Civil Judge after hearing both sides, allowed the said application and appointed Sri P.M.S.Kishore, Advocate as Advocate- Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit building with a liberty to take the help of an Authorised Architect or Civil Engineer in execution of warrant. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-plaintiff filed the present revision. 4. It can be seen from the material on record that the application for appointment of Commissioner was filed only for limited purpose of making local inspection and to note down the physical features of the suit building. The defendants have contended that the plaintiff raised additional floor in violation of the approved sanctioned plan and the plaintiff denies the same. Under those circumstances, the inspection of the suit building by independent agency like Advocate Commissioner, in order to place on record actual features of the building as it exists would certainly be helpful to the Court in arriving at just decision in the matter. As the Advocate Commissioner would only be making local inspection and noting the physical features and placing them on record by way of report, the question of gathering evidence from out of the said inspection does not arise. The impugned order appointing the Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection and to file his report noting the physical features of the suit building does not therefore call for any interference. It is needless to state that both parties are at liberty to file objections to the Commissioner’s report. 5. In the result, the revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 01.07.2010 bss