IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRAPRADESH AT HYDERABAD HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1767 OF 2009 FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND NINE Between: Megacity Avopa Housing and Welfare Society, rep. By its President K. Koteswar Rao .... Appellant. And: D. Marreddy and 6 others ....Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1767 OF 2009 ORDER: The petitioner filed this Revision Petition aggrieved by the order dated 4.3.2009 passed in IA No.150 of 2009 in O.S.No.553 of 1999 on the file of the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, L.B. Nagar, Ranga Reddy District. The suit was filed for the relief of perpetual injunction. An interlocutory application being IA No.2134 of 1999 was filed for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, to survey the suit schedule property, by taking the assistance of Government Surveyor. The dispute was about the land in survey No.1007/A, Kukatapalli village. It was pleaded that the petitioner purchased Ac.12.20 Gts. of land from that survey number and that the respondents are interfering with its possession. The trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner who, in turn submitted his report. The trial of the suit has progressed to a substantial extent. The petitioner filed IA No.150 of 2009 in OS No.553 of 1999 under Order 26 Rule 1 and 2 with a prayer to appoint another Advocate Commissioner to survey the suit schedule property. It was alleged that the Advocate Commissioner, appointed by the trial court in IA No.2134 of 1999 did not locate the suit schedule property of Ac.12.20 Gts. and that the objections raised by the petitioner were not considered. The respondents filed counter opposing the application. Through its order dated 4.3.2009, the trial Court dismissed the IA No.150 of 1999. Hence this revision. Sri M.Chandrasekhara Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the land in survey No.1007/A, Kukatapalli is a vast in extent and the very purpose of filing IA No.2134 of 1999 was to ensure that the land purchased by the various persons and agencies in that survey number are located. He submits that though some of the items were located by the Commissioner, the suit schedule property was not identified at all, and thereby the necessity has arisen for appointment of another Advocate Commissioner. He submits that the view taken by the trial court, while dismissing the IA No.150 of 2009 in OS No.553 of 1999 cannot be sustained either in law, or on facts. Sri S. Niranjan Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the appointment of a first Commissioner itself, was not tenable, in view of the limited scope of the suit. Placing reliance on certain precedents, the learned counsel submits that the appointment of Commissioners, in suits for relief of perpetual injunction, cannot be resorted to, as a matter of course. The learned counsel further submits that even assuming that it is permissible to appoint a second Commissioner, it can be done only after a categorical finding is recorded to the effect that the report submitted by the first Commissioner is defective. The suit is filed for the relief of injunction of simplicitor. It is for the plaintiff in a suit of this nature, to prove that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property and that the defendants are trying to interfere with his possession. This has to be established by the plaintiff through oral and documentary evidence. It is no part of the duty of the Court to localize the properties or to get the physical features noted, in matters of this nature. In Koduru Sesha Reddy Vs. Gottigundala Venkata Rami Reddy[1], this Court held that in suits for injunction, the Commissioner, if at all can be appointed only after the evidence is recorded and the Court finds that it can arrive a proper conclusion only on the basis of report of the Commissioner, appointed in an application filed by either of the parties. It was observed that when a Commissioner, appointed by the Court has already submitted the report, a second Commissioner cannot be appointed unless the earlier report is found to be defective. If the decision referred to above, is applied to the facts of this case, it emerges that the appointment of first Advocate Commissioner itself was some what untenable inasmuch as the IA was filed at the threshold i.e., before commencement of trial. Even assuming that the appointment of Commissioner and submission of a report by him are proper, a second Commissioner cannot be appointed unless the report was found fault with. At any rate, such a course is impermissible in a suit for mere injunction. Totally differential things would have ensured, had the suit been for the relief of declaration of title, with reference to the boundaries pleaded in the plaint. Such is not the case here. The trial Court has taken correct view of the matter. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the trial court. The C.R.P. is accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ L.NARASIMHA REDDY,J Date:28.08.2009. Gk. THE HON’BLE SRI JUTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.1767 OF 2002 ORDER Date:28.08.2009. Gk. [1] 2006 ALD (1) 372