HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2169 of 2011 ORDER: This revision is filed against the order, dated 25.03.2011, passed in I.A.No.5 of 2011 in I.A.No.275 of 2010 in O.S.No.530 of 2009 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Kurnool whereunder and whereby the petition filed under Section 151 C.P.C. to redirect the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule property and submit a report with regard to ABCD road shown in the plaint plan is dismissed. In the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.5 of 2011, the petitioner stated that the Advocate Commissioner has given a report stating that the dotted lines shown as road does not seem to be a rastha and that she was appointed only to note down the physical features of the disputed property and therefore, he sought re-entrustment of the warrant to the Advocate Commissioner. The respondent filed a counter-affidavit stating that there is no ambiguity in the Commissioner’s report and that the Commissioner executed the warrant in pursuance of the work memos submitted by both the counsel and that she has already noted the physical features that were existing on the ground and therefore, there are no grounds to redirect the Advocate Commissioner to inspect the disputed locality. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The suit is instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff for grant of permanent injunction. It is coming up for trial. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. The Commissioner executed the warrant and filed her report. The objection of the petitioner is that contrary to the directions of the trial Court, the Commissioner gave her opinion. The opinion of the Commissioner may not be relevant, but whether the Commissioner has executed the warrant by duly noting down the physical features of the property or not, is relevant. When an objection was raised, the trial Court overruled the same through order, dated 13.12.2010. Challenging the said order, no revision has been filed. So, the said order has become final. Therefore, the question of re-entrustment of the warrant to the same Commissioner does not arise in view of the fact that her appointment is only to note down the physical features of the property in question. Therefore, there are no grounds to admit the revision. The civil revision petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.C.BHANU 24th June 2011 kdl