HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1897 of 2008 Dated : 17.06.2010 Between : Lyagala Kanaka Reddy & others ….. Petitioners a n d Lyagala Bapu Reddy @ Bapi Reddy ….. Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1897 of 2008 ORDER: Heard Sri K.Raja Reddy, learned counsel for the revision petitioners, and Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the respondent. Dismissal of the petition filed under Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to locate the suit land and also to locate the land of wife of the second defendant by the impugned order dated 28.03.2008 in I.A.No.2508 of 2007 in O.S.No.461 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Karimnagar, led the defendants to file this revision petition. The request was made for appointment of the Advocate Commissioner claiming that the claims of both parties are overlapping in respect of the same land and oral evidence cannot make clear the questions in controversy. The respondents opposed the request stating that the wife of the second defendant is not a party to the suit and she did not indicate even the boundaries of the land claimed by her in O.S.No.574 of 2004 filed by her for a permanent injunction. The trial Court in the impugned order found that it is for the plaintiff to establish his claimed possession of the suit land and the matter coming up for defendants’ evidence need not be further protracted by allowing the request. The revision petitioners claim that the dispute is in respect of 0.28 guntas, which is the subject matter of O.S.No.574 of 2004, and localization of the disputed properties is necessary for a satisfactory adjudication. Sri K.Venu Madhav, learned counsel for the respondent has brought to the notice of the Court xerox copies of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.574 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, dated 24.01.2007 showing that the suit filed by the wife of the second defendant herein against the respondent herein and others for a permanent injunction in respect of the self same property now sought to be claimed ended against her on merits. It is seen from the judgment therein that the wife of the second defendant herein failed to prove her possession of the land claimed by her and the trial Court was unable to doubt the possession of the respondent therein over Ac.4-06 guntas as claimed by him. The decree and judgment are stated to be still in force and if so the dismissal of petition for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner by the trial Court cannot be considered wrong under the circumstances. The reasons given by the trial Court cannot be considered perverse or unfounded, more so when the second defendant’s wife is not a party to the suit for injunction and when any injunction will not run with the land. Therefore, there are no merits in the revision petition. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ______________________ G.BHAVANI PRASAD, J 17th June, 2010 SUR