IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4123 & 4158 of 2010 Between: Vissarapu Demudu Naidu ..... PETITIONER AND Dharmisetti Arjuna and 2 others .....RESPONDENTS The Court made the following: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4123 & 4158 of 2010 COMMON ORDER: Petitioner is the defendant in the suit O.S.98/2008 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Chodavaram filed by the respondents herein. In the pending suit, he has filed two applications in I.A.Nos.159/2010 and 160/2010 for the purpose of reopening the evidence of the defendants for adducing further evidence and also to appoint an Advocate- Commissioner to determine the suit property and property covered by the sale deed dated 30.08.1979 which are not one and the same with reference to boundaries and extents mentioned in the plaint schedule and the schedule covered by the sale deed, and to note down that there is another bit of land with extent and boundaries mentioned in the sale deed on south of the suit land and to note down the existence of well, sugarcane crusher tank, structures, various trees and other features in the suit schedule property covered by the sale deed. The Court below dismissed both the applications by a common order dated 03.07.2010 on the ground that the application filed is not a simple application to note down the physical features, but the relief sought for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner is to gather the evidence, which cannot be allowed before passing the decree and that for the purpose of appointing an Advocate-Commissioner the suit cannot be reopened. I am of the opinion that had the petitioner filed simple application to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner only to note down the physical features, it would have a different matter, but the applications filed by the petitioner are nothing but to gather evidence for determination of the plaint schedule property. I do not see any infirmity legal or otherwise to interfere with the impugned order. Both these Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH,J Dated: 11.03.2011 Dsr