THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4120 of 2011. ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dt. 24.8.2011of the learned Prl. Senior Civil Judge, Visakhapatnam rejecting I.A.No. 1258 of 2011 in O.S.No. 1389 of 2009. The revision petitioners are the plaintiffs who filed the suit for a permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The respondent/Endowment Department, the defendant in the suit asserted title to the property. There is a survey report drawn up by the Deputy Inspector of Survey dt. 8.9.2010. Reliance is placed on the said survey report by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs in support of their claim for being in possession of the suit schedule property as on the date of the suit while the respondent disputes the survey report on the ground that it was not drawn up in its presence. Further, the respondent claims that the petitioners are in illegal occupation of the property belonging to it. The petitioners filed I.A.No. 1258 of 2011 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to localise the property in the presence of the counsel for the respective parties, on the basis of the documents of title of both parties and other relevant record and with the assistance of a surveyor from the survey department. This application was rejected by the court below by the order impugned, in view of the survey report Ex:A.15; on the ground that the Deputy Survey Inspector was examined as Pw.2 and deposed about the survey in respect of the suit schedule property; and since the issue raised at the instance of the petitioners as to whether survey was conducted by Pw.2 in the presence of the parties after due notice to the respondent or not requires to be decided after examination of the concerned record. Accordingly, the court below concluded that no case is made out for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner, who in any event is not competent to fix the boundaries of the suit land. This Court discerns no infirmity in the impugned order warranting revisional interference under Article 227 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the revision petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. If the revision petitioners are so desirous, they may move an application before the trial curt for a de novo survey of the suit land by the survey department (the survey to be conducted after notice to the respective parties); or in the context of an assertion to the title by the respondent may move an application for amendment of suit for seeking declaration of title as well or may even apply to withdraw the suit with liberty file a fresh and comprehensive suit for title and possession. _______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 23.09.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4120 of 2011. ORDER: Dt. 23.09.2011.