HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2467 OF 2010 DATE:18-06-2010 BETWEEN S.P.Ranga Swamy & Others …Petitioners AND Bonam Narasayamma …Respondent THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2467 OF 2010 ORDER: Petitioners-defendants filed this revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India questioning the docket order passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Kothapeta, dated 29.4.2010 allowing I.A.No.297 of 2010 in O.S.No.20 of 2009 filed for appointment of second advocate-commissioner to demarcate ABCD and EFGH portions of the plaint plan with reference to the registered document of plaintiff. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that at the instance of the plaintiff-respondent herein earlier an advocate- commissioner was appointed who filed his report along with sketch under Exs.C.1 and C.2 and that the said commissioner was also examined as a witness and he was also cross-examined, and therefore, appointing the second advocate-commissioner is nothing but gathering the evidence. The court below by the impugned docket order observed that the report of the earlier advocate-commissioner is not helpful to decide the dispute between the parties to the suit and therefore, the appointment of second advocate-commissioner was felt necessary to resolve the dispute. The impugned order of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge is only a discretionary order, which was felt necessary to resolve the dispute between the parties. The petitioners’ rights have not been foreclosed. The petitioners will have a right to file objections to the report, if so filed by the advocate-commissioner if it is not favourable to them and they can as well question the appointment of the second advocate-commissioner ultimately if the suit is decided against the petitioners in an appeal, if any, filed questioning the judgment of the trial Court. If the impugned order is allowed to stand, it will not occasion for failure of justice so as to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 227 of Constitution of India as the same does not fall under any of the exceptions carved out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai[1] and hence, the Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. JUNE 18, 2010 Tsr. [1] AIR 2003 SC 3044