THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.635 of 2010 Date:24th December, 2010 Between: A.MannepuReddy ..... Petitioner AND 1. Pushpavathamma & Ors. .....Respondents *** THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.635 of 2010 ORDER: The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 15.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.682 of 2009 in O.S.No.28 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nagarkurnool, whereby and whereunder the learned Senior Civil Judge dismissed the application filed by the petitioner under Order 26, Rule 9 r/w. Sec.151 CPC seeking appointment of an Advocate Commissioner for demarcation of the suit schedule property. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the order impugned in the revision. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the application seeking appointment of the Advocate Commissioner has become necessary, since the defendants took up the plea that the land has been covered by Roads and Buildings. 4. I have gone through the petition filed by the petitioner in the trial Court. The relief sought for in the petition reads as hereunder: “For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court may be pleased to appoint Advocate Commissioner to measure the total Sy.No.346 of Manthati village with the help of Surveyor and fix up the boundaries of the said survey number and also fix up the boundaries of the suit schedule land and lands of respondents in the said survey number in the interest of justice.” 5. What is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and what is sought for in the petition do not go together. It appears the petitioner moved the application before the trial Court when the case was coming up for arguments. No valid reasons have been assigned by the petitioner for not making similar application at the earlier point of time. The application filed by the petitioner can be categorized as a belated one. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the petitioner by giving cogent and convincing reasons. The order impugned in the revision does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J. Date:24th December, 2010. cs THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Civil Revision Petition No.635 of 2010 Date:24th December, 2010