HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.CHANDRA KUMAR C.R.P. No. 2359 of 2009 ORDER: This revision is directed against the order in IA No. 448 of 2008 in OS No. 86 of 2008 dated 27.8.2008 passed by the Prl. Civil Judge, Chirala. 2. The brief facts of the case are as that – the revision petitioner is the plaintiff before the lower court. He filed a suit in OS No. 86 of 2008 for recovery of possession of the suit schedule land and also for mandatory injunction directing the 1st defendant to remove the constructions made in the plaint schedule site and for costs. In the above suit, he filed an application being IA No. 448 of 2008 seeking to appoint an advocate-commissioner to note the physical features of the plaint schedule site and to measure the sites of the petitioner and the respondents and demarcate the road with the assistance of the Mandal Surveyor, Chingaganjam. The lower court allowed the application appointing an advocate-commissioner with a direction to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property. 3. The only contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is that though he sought for measuring the land of the petitioner and also the area of the respondents that was not considered by the lower court and no direction is given to take the help of the Mandal Surveyor. 4. It appears that the main controversy cannot be settled unless the total extent of suit schedule property is properly measured and boundaries are fixed. When the petitioner is specifically saying that he purchased the site to an extent of 194 sq.yds in Sy.No. 466/19 of Sopirala village, Chinaganjam, and alleged that the 1st respondent herein has encroached into his site showing as ‘ADEF’ and sought a direction to the 1st respondent to remove the constructions made in ‘ADEF’, it appears that the lower court ought to have given a direction to measure the suit schedule disputed site i.e, ‘ABCD’ as shown in the map and ‘ADEF’ with the help of Mandal Surveyor. The Advocate Commissioner and the Mandal Surveyor shall fix the boundaries of only ‘ABCD’ i.e, to an extent of 194 sq.yds of site in Sy.No. 466 /16 of Sopirala village of Chinaganjam as also the site shown as ‘ADEF’ in the plaint plan. 5. Subject to the above observation, the revision petition is disposed of. No costs. _______________________ B.CHANDRA KUMAR,J Dt. 04-02-2011 Mjl/*