THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.4341 of 2009 8TH December,M 2010 Between :- A.Nagendram Yadav and others .. Petitioners And Cheral Buchanna and others .. Respondents THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY C.R.P.No.4341 of 2009 ORDER:- This revision is directed against the order dated 12-8-2009 passed in I.A.No.481 of 2009 in I.A.No.460 of 2009 in O.S.No.31 of 2009 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment of Commissioner reserving liberty to renew their application at the appropriate stage after filing the written statement disclosing the entire defence. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 23-9-2009. Respondents entered appearance through a Counsel. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and perused the order impugned in the revision. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners moved the application before the Trial Court for appointment of Commissioner to note the physical features of the suit schedule property. But the learned Senior Civil Judge, without assigning valid reasons, proceeded to dismiss the application and therefore the order impugned in the revision is liable to be set aside. I have gone through the order impugned in the revision. The learned Senior Civil Judge has given liberty to the petitioners to renew their request after filing the written statement. The relevant portion of the order reads as hereunder:- “In this case the petitioners got marked pahanies commencing from 1973-74 to 2007-08 which shows the possession of the petitioners/plaintiffs. Infact the defendants filed this petition even prior to filing of counter by them in the injunction petition. In the absence of the defendants filing the written statement disclosing their entire defence and that the defendants having availing time of 30 days till they did not file written statement, this Court is not inclined to appoint an advocate Commissioner. Fact of possession can be considered by documentary evidence that may be adduce by both the parties. Still this Court is of the opinion that the defendants are at liberty to renew this petition at appropriate stage after filing of written statement disclosing their entire defence. With this observation this petition is dismissed for the present.” Since the liberty has already been given to the petitioners by the learned Senior Civil Judge to file a fresh application after filing written statement, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in the revision. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 23-9-2009 shall stand vacated. ________________________ B.Seshasayana Reddy, J 2nd December, 2010 smr