HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY Review CRP MP No.7402 of 2011 in CRP No.3002 of 2011 ORDER: This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking review of the order dated 13.09.2011 in CRP No.3002 of 2011 wherein the said revision petition filed by the respondents herein was allowed setting aside the order dated 06.07.2011 in IA No.20 of 2011 in IA No.903 of 2010 in OS No.3921 of 2010 on the file of 19th Junior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, directing the trial court to appoint the Advocate Commissioner for making local inspection of the suit property and to note its topographical features thereof and file report with plan. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. The petitioner herein filed suit for permanent injunction alleging that the defendants were causing obstructions for the construction of compound wall and that the defendant also removed the barricades erected by the plaintiff at the time of taking delivery of possession in the execution proceedings in EP No.43 of 2007 in OS No.1287 of 1989. The defendant contested the suit on the ground that they are in physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property, running a small scale industry in the name of ‘Deccan Iron Manufacturing Industry’. They filed IA No.20 of 2011 for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the suit property. As the trial court dismissed the said application, the defendant filed the above revision. After hearing both sides and taking into consideration the contentions advanced by both parties, it was considered to be a fit case where the Advocate Commissioner can be appointed for making local inspection of the suit property and to note its topographical features for proper and effective adjudication of the dispute between the parties. 4. The plaintiff seeks review of the said order on the ground that the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner would amount to gathering of evidence as the physical features have already been captured in a CD while effecting delivery of possession in favour of the plaintiff in the execution proceedings. The said contentions were raised in the revision petition and they were duly considered and it was held that whether the suit property is being put to non-residential use by running a small scale industry therein as contended by the defendants or is being used as a residence for the plaintiff as contended by him is a matter that admits easy verification by making local inspection. Notwithstanding the fact that certain topographical features of the suit property were already captured in a CD, it was held that the appointment of a Commissioner would not amount to gathering of evidence, as the Commissioner would not decide as to who was in possession of the property and would only place on record the physical features of the property, which would help the trial court to appreciate the evidence in a proper and objective manner. 5. As the contentions raised in the present review application have already been considered while disposing of the revision petition, the question of review of the said order in terms of order 47 Rule 1 CPC does not arise. In the guise of review, the petitioner is virtually seeking re-hearing of the matter, which is not permissible. There is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record nor is a case of discovery of any new and important matter nor is there any other sufficient reason that calls for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The para-meters for review under Order 47 Rule 1 are very much settled and the grounds raised by the petitioner are not at all attracted to the present case. In the circumstances, it is held that the review application is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In the result, the review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J Date: 20.01.2012 bss