IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRDESH:: HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY EIGTH DAY OF OCTOBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.53 OF 2009 Between: Nimmakayala Subba Reddy and another …Petitioner A n d Madisetti Palankaiah and two another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.R.P.No.53 OF 2009 ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order dated 31.10.2008 in I.A.No.59 of 2007 in O.S.No.223 of 2006, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Darsi, wherein the said application filed by the petitioners herein, the defendants, under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC for appointment of advocate-commissioner for the purpose of localizing the plaint schedule land, was dismissed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The respondents herein filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners/defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property of Ac.3-87 cents situate in Sy.No.257/1 of Obbapuram village. According to the plaintiffs, they purchased the suit land from Vustala Mangamma under a registered sale deed dated 21.08.1997 for a valuable consideration of Rs.31,000/- and ever since they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and in recognition of their possession and enjoyment, the revenue authorities also issued pattadar passbook and title deeds and their names were also mutated in the revenue accounts. Alleging that the defendants without having any right, title or interest over the suit land are trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment, the plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction. The defendant filed written statement contending that the plaint schedule land of Ac.3-87 cents is in Sy.No.256/1, but not in Sy.No.257. According to the defendants, they are in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.256/1, which is their ancestral property and Vustala Mangamma has no right therein and the said Mangamma has sold the land in Sy.No.256/1 as if it is in Sy.No.257/1. The defendants further contended that the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule are not tallying with the plaintiffs’ sale deed and that the plaintiffs are trying to grab the defendants’ land under the guise of the sale deed dated 21.08.1997. The defendants filed I.A.No.59 of 2007 seeking appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of localizing the plaint schedule land with the assistance of Surveyor. By the impugned order, the said application was dismissed. 4. According to the plaintiffs, the suit land of Ac.3-87 cents is situate in Sy.No.257/1 and they purchased the same from V.Mangamma under a registered sale deed dated 21.08.1997 and ever since they have been in possession and enjoyment and that their names were also entered in the revenue accounts and pattadar passbooks were also issued in their favour for the suit land. According to the defendants, the suit land is actually situate in Sy.No.256/1 and under the guise of the sale deed, the plaintiffs are trying to grab the defendants’ land situate in Sy.No.256/1. It is significant to note that the sale deed in plaintiffs’ favour was executed on 21.08.1997 and the present suit is filed nine years thereafter and during the said period, the defendants never made any complaint alleging that the plaintiffs were trying to grab the defendants’ land under the guise of the sale deed. If really there was any dispute regarding the location of the land, the defendant would not have kept quiet without taking any steps for resolving the same. Admittedly, they have not approached the revenue or survey authorities seeking survey of the land for the purpose of localization. Further, the defendants have not filed any document to show that they have got some land situate in Sy.No.256/1 and the said land is the same as the one shown in the plaint schedule. The defendants’ claim that their land is ancestral and there is no document of title, but they have also not filed any revenue accounts to show that they have land in Sy.No.256/1 situate within the boundaries mentioned in the plaint schedule. On the other hand, the plaintiffs have filed their title deed and also pattadar passbook issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer and also the cultivation accounts in support of their claim of possession and enjoyment over the schedule land. Except making a bald allegation that the plaintiffs are laying false claim over the defendants’ land by showing that it is situate in Sy.No.257 though, in fact, it is in Sy.No.256, the defendants have not produced any material in support of the said plea and they did not even file any document to show that they have got the land in Sy.No.256/1. In the absence of any material even prima facie showing the existence of any dispute over the location of the suit land, appointment of a Commissioner for the purpose of localization of the suit land is not warranted, simply because the defendants have pleaded that the suit land is in Sy.No.256, but not in Sy.No.257 as mentioned the plaint schedule. Appointment of Advocate- Commissioner, in the circumstances, for the purpose of localization of the suit land would only amount to an attempt to collect the evidence, which is not permissible. 5. The impugned order, dismissing the application filed by the petitioners/defendants, does not, therefore, call for any interference. 6. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th October, 2011 Lrkm.