IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH : HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE EIGHTH (8TH) DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4015 of 2008 Between: M/s Rahul Barium Salts, rep. by its MP K. Kisshore … Petitioner And: M/s Deekay Biscuits & others … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Civil Revision Petition No.4015 of 2008 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order dated 22.07.2008 in IA No.1066 of 2007 in IA No.441 of 2005 in OS No.42 of 2005 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Medak, wherein, the said application filed by the first respondent herein-first defendant under section 151 CPC seeking direction to the Commissioner to further execute the warrant and note down the boundaries of other plots including Karuna Cables Private Limited, was allowed, with certain directions to the Commissioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the first respondent. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for declaration of plaintiff’s title to the suit schedule property of Ac.3.00 in Sy.No.172/C, Bollaram village, bearing Plot No.101/B of Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative Industrial Estate and for permanent injunction restraining the first respondent herein from interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The first defendant filed written statement, contesting the suit. The plaintiff also filed IA No.441 of 2005 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking temporary injunction and an exparte injunction was granted on 22.09.2005. After the defendant entered appearance and filed counter, IA No.441 of 2005 was dismissed, after hearing both sides on 05.12.2005. The plaintiff preferred an appeal in CMA No.172 of 2006 before this Court. By order dated 07.09.2006, this Court remanded the matter to the trial Court for fresh consideration with a direction to appoint Advocate Commissioner to undertake local inspection of the area with specific reference to Plot Nos.101/A and B of Sri Venkateshwara Cooperative Industrial Estate of IDA, Bollaram. A direction was also issued to the Society i.e., 3rd respondent herein, to make available an authenticated copy of the lay out to the Advocate Commissioner, who is required to prepare a sketch and report on the basis of physical verification with reference to lay out and respective sale deeds of the parties. Both parties were also given opportunity to file work memos and the Advocate Commissioner was empowered to avail the services of a Professional Surveyor. The trial Court was directed to dispose of IA No.441 of 2005 on its own merits, after receiving report and on consideration of the objections that may be filed by the parties. Till such time, the status-quo obtaining as on the date of order in CMA No.172 of 2006 was directed to be maintained. 4. Subsequent to the remand, the trial Court appointed Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection and to file a report together with plan in terms of the orders of this Court in CMA No.172 of 2006. The parties furnished work memos before the Commissioner and the Commissioner executed warrant after taking the copy of the lay out from the society and filed report. It is stated that even before the report was filed, the present application IA No.1066 of 2007 was filed by the first defendant, seeking re- entrustment of the warrant by the Commissioner to note down the boundaries and existence of the road to other plots, including Karuna Cables Pvt. Ltd., and to ascertain whether the same are in accordance with the sanctioned plan of the lay out. The Advocate Commissioner filed his report on 13.02.2008. The present application was filed on 24.12.2007. 5. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petition is pre-mature and even before the Commissioner filed his report, seeking a direction to the Commissioner to execute warrant further is uncalled for. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, the petitioner-first defendant has stated that while the Commissioner was executing the warrant a request was made to note down whether 20 meters width of road falls on the southern side of the plot No.102-A belonging to Karuna Cables as per clause IV of the work memo and also to compare the said space with the sanctioned lay out plan supplied by the society, but the Commissioner was reluctant to note down the boundaries of Karuna Cables for the reason that there was no direction from the Court. When the parties have furnished the work memos and at the time of the execution of the warrant, if either of the parties felt that in addition to the aspects covered by work memos, certain other features are to be taken note of and brought on record, it is always open to them to furnish additional work memos or seek indulgence of the Court to give necessary directions to the Commissioner. Ultimately, the whole object of appointing Advocate Commissioner for local inspection is to bring all necessary and relevant aspects of typography on record together with necessary measurements so that the disputed sites are localized and the overlapping if any is identified. The report and the plan prepared by the Advocate Commissioner that too with the help of a Surveyor are expected to render necessary assistance to the Court in adjudicating upon the dispute in a comprehensive and effective manner. The order passed by this Court in CMA No.172 of 2006 is intended to achieve the said object only. Inasmuch as the Commissioner has executed the warrant and as per the averments in the affidavit, he was reluctant to note down the boundaries of Karuna Cables in the absence of any direction from the Court. The first defendant filed application IA No.1066 of 2007 seeking further direction to the Commissioner to note down the boundaries of other plots, including Karuna Cables and also existence of the road. The question of application being pre-mature does not arise as there is no prohibition preventing a party from seeking further direction from the Court, even before the report is filed. In fact, subsequent to filing of the application, the report was filed and the same was referred to in the impugned order. The learned Senior Civil Judge, duly considering the report and the work memos, considered it necessary to direct the Commissioner to verify and locate the plot No.101/A claimed by the 2nd defendant and Plot No.101/B claimed by the plaintiff and also to file fresh plan with the help of a Surveyor for more clarification and verify the boundaries of Karuna Cables to know whether their Plot in 102/A is to the east of 101/A and note down four boundaries of Karuna Cables, so as to localize the Plots No.101/A and 101/B and also to know whether Ammenapur village boundary falls on the western side of 101/B or eastern side of 101/A as per the lay out. The trial Court felt that the Commissioner’s report is lacking in some particulars and needs clarity and some of the aspects of the work memos are not answered or partially answered. The trial Court would be perfectly justified to direct the Commissioner to revisit the land and furnish the required particulars. The question as to whether or not, the Commissioner’s report and plan already filed would suffice for arriving at a just decision in the matter does not arise for consideration in the present revision, the scope of which is very limited. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Commissioner was appointed in pursuance of the directions given by this Court earlier in CMA No.172 of 2006, the respondent-first defendant cannot seek a direction to the Commissioner to verify certain aspects not covered by the order of this Court is untenable. The purport of the order of this Court earlier is to remand the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal after appointing a Commissioner for local inspection and after receiving report of the Commissioner together with plan prepared with the assistance of a Surveyor. This Court merely directed appointment of Commissioner with a liberty to the parties to file work memos and that the trial Court shall dispose of the I.A. on its own merits. There is no restriction placed on the aspects to be covered by work memos and all the factors, which according to the parties are relevant, will have to be covered so that a comprehensive report is placed before the Court so as to facilitate an effective adjudication of the dispute. 7. In ‘Chennappa Gounder v. Narayanan[1]’, the High Court of Madras held as follows: “….So I do not think that the Court has lack of jurisdiction if the Court, for any reason in dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner to send the same Commissioner to note things which be ought to have noted but he omitted to have noted in the report. This is asking for a report to supplement the earlier report just to supply the omission.” 8. In ‘Veppanathar v. Kaliappan[2]’, the High Court of Madras held that ‘objection as to defect or deficiency as to the report of the Commissioner does not necessitate scrapping the report. Mistake or deficiency can be rectified by filing supplementary report.’ 9. In ‘M. Ramesh Babu vs. M. Sreedhar[3]’, this Court held that ‘if the circumstances warrant, Court may appoint second Commissioner or seek opinion of the second expert without setting aside the earlier report’. 10. In fact, in the present case, no second commissioner is sought to be appointed and the same Commissioner is given further direction to note certain other features. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order giving direction to the same Commissioner to note certain other features as stated in the operative portion of the order, does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction, as the said order does not suffer from any illegality or material irregularity. 11. In the result, the civil revision petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. The interim stay granted earlier stands vacated. ___________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 08.04.2011 bss [1] 2000 AIHC 3793 [2] 2000 AIHC 1028 [3] 2009(4) ALT 780 (DB)