HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5738 OF 2009 DATE:05-12-2009 BETWEEN: Varada Venkata Subrahmanyam …Petitioner AND Nalam Suryanarayana …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.5738 OF 2009 ORDER: Re-entrustment of warrant to the very same advocate-commissioner by allowing I.A.No.2121 of 2009 in O.S.No.292 of 2005, dated 9.11.2009 by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kakinada is sought to be revised in this revision filed by the plaintiff under Article 227 of Constitution of India. In the suit filed by the petitioner-plaintiff for relief of declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction for removal of illegal construction made in the suit schedule property shown as BEFC red marked portion of plaint plan, an advocate-commissioner was appointed in I.A.No.953 of 2008 for identifying the BEFC red marked portion by taking measurements with the help of documents and with the assistance of qualified surveyor and to note down the physical features etc. On filing a report by the advocate- commissioner, the respondent herein-defendant filed the impugned I.A. alleging that the advocate-commissioner did not measure the properties of both the parties and the commissioner did not mention the extent of the properties in possession of the parties and unless the entire extent of Ac.0.18 ½ cents of land is measured by the commissioner, it is not possible to demarcate the properties of the parties as per their documents. Therefore, the defendant sought a direction to the commissioner for re-entrustment of the warrant to execute the same as directed by the court earlier. The lower Court observing that the measurements taken were not mentioned in the report of the commissioner and the extent of the property under enjoyment of each party was also not mentioned and that there was no mention whether there were fixed survey stones identifying the land, by the impugned order, held that the report is very vague and is not helpful to determine the dispute in the suit and holding so, allowed the I.A. as prayed for. The learned counsel for the petitioner by placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in R.Vijayudu v. N.Ramachandra Reddy (2004 (6) ALT 411) contends that recording of reasons for dissatisfaction over proceedings of Commissioner’s report is imperative and the same can be done only after the Commissioner was examined and evidence in that regard is let in, and therefore, the direction to the earlier Commissioner to inspect the suit schedule premises again and to file the second report does not arise and hence the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I do not see any merit in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner since in the earlier warrant entrusted to the Commissioner, he was specifically directed to note down the physical features of suit schedule property i.e. BEFC red marked portion of plaint plan with the help of documents of both parties and with the qualified surveyor to take measurements. But the Commissioner’s report is silent with regard to the execution of the warrant in toto and therefore, the lower Court is well within its jurisdiction in re-entrusting the warrant with specific direction for measuring the entire extent of Ac.0.18 ½ cents of property with reference to the documents of the parties. No infirmity is discernable with the impugned order. The revision fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. DECEMBER 05, 2009 Tsr.