IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :4119 OF 2010 DATED:17.9.2010 Between: T.Venkata Prasad & another .....PETITIONERs AND M.Janardhanrao & another .....RESPONDENTs This Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :4119 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision petition is filed by the petitioners aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2010 in I.A.No:411 of 2009 in O.S.No:4036 of 2008 on the file of the learned XXI Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The defendants have filed an application in I.A.No:411 of 2009 under order 26 rule 9 C.P.C seeking to appoint an advocate commissioner to make local inspection for the purpose of elucidating whether the shed and compound wall are existing in the suit schedule property which is the subject matter in dispute with the help of the concerned Revenue Officer to identify the same. After hearing both sides, the Court below has appointed Sri J.K.Murthy as an Advocate Commissioner to make local inspection for the purpose of elucidating whether the shed and compound wall are existing in the schedule property, which is the subject matter in dispute. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision petition is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs. The material on record goes to show that as per the amended plaint, the suit is filed for a perpetual injunction and also for a declaration that the sale deed in question is not binding on the plaintiffs. In view of the nature of the proceedings and controversy between the parties as to the existence of shed and the compound wall in the schedule property, which warrants physical verification for an effective adjudication of the issue involved, I am of the opinion that the Court below is just and proper in appointing an advocate commissioner for the purpose in question. In this view of the matter, I feel that the order impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity and thereby, it does not warrant any interference by this Court. As such, this revision petition is devoid of merits and hence, the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ Smt. Justice T.Meena Kumari Date:17.9.2010 Nn THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :4119 of 2010 17th SEPTEMBER, 2010