IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2465 of 2010 Between: Ravuri Maheswari .. Petitioner AND Samineni Bhanu Prasada Rao .. Respondent The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2465 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is filed against the order, dated 26.04.2010, in I.A.No.402 of 2010 in O.S.No.173 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, whereunder and whereby, the petition filed by the respondent/plaintiff for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down physical features of the plaint schedule property and to take assistance of Surveyor in fixing the boundaries to the petition schedule property, was allowed. 2. Heard both sides. 3. I.A.No.402 of 2010 in O.S.No.173 of 2010 was allowed ex parte on 26.04.2010 though the case was actually posted to 01.06.2010. The case was coming for appearance and the respondent/plaintiff served papers on the petitioner/defendant only in I.A.No.401 of 2010 which is filed for grant of ad-interim injunction in favour of him. The object of local inspection is not so much to collect evidence which can be taken in Court but to obtain evidence which from its very peculiar nature can be had only on the spot. Petition is filed to appoint a Commissioner to fix the boundaries and to note down the physical features of schedule property. The defendant has not entered his appearance. Unless defendant appears and takes a plea disputing the physical features and boundaries of property, the consideration of appointment of Commissioner may not arise. An order cannot be granted for mere asking. The Court has to apply its mind as to the circumstances warrant for appointment of Commissioner. The order impugned does not contain any reasons of what so ever in granting the relief. Even without the appearance made by the petitioner/defendant, the Advocate Commissioner was appointed. Since the Advocate Commissioner was appointed ex parte, the execution of the warrant may not reflect the true and correct facts because the petitioner/defendant would not be present to put forward his case to Advocate Commissioner. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside 4. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order, dated 26.04.2010, in I.A.No.402 of 2010 in O.S.No.173 of 2010, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Khammam, and the trial Court is directed to dispose of the petition after hearing both sides. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ K.C.BHANU, J Date: 10th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2465 of 2010 Date: 10th March, 2011 KL