HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 2923 OF 2010 Friday, the Twenty Third day of July, Two Thousand and Ten Between Ahmedi Begum and another Petitioners AND Maqbool Ahmed and another Respondents ORAL ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 1425 of 2008 aggrieved by the order dated 25.2.2010 passed in I.A. No. 118 of 2010 by the learned II Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, dismissing the petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure to note down the physical features of the suit schedule property. The petitioners herein filed the above suit for declaration apart from permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents herein for removal the illegal construction made by them in violation of the building rules and approved plan and treating the compound wall between their premises as the main wall without leaving set backs and also opened number of ventilators, windows infringing the right of privacy and easmentary rights. Hence, sought for the appointment of an Advocate Commissioner. The respondents herein have denied the allegations made by the petitioners. The court below by the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, dismissed the application observing that mere noting down the physical features, will not solve the controversy in issue and the violations alleged by the petitioners have to be decided basing on the evidence let in by both the sides. As can be seen from the order impugned, issues have already been framed and the evidence is also recorded on behalf of both the parties and conditional order is passed for production of evidence by the defendants. In such circumstance, the court below has rightly observed that mere noting down the physical features will not solve the issue in controversy and it has to be decided basing on the evidence let in by both the parties. Having gone through the entire material available on record, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order impugned warranting interference. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed No order as to costs. In the facts and circumstances of the case, as the evidence on behalf of both the parties is let in, the court below is directed to dispose of the suit as early as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. ________________________ Justice T. Meena Kumari July 23, 2010 MAS