HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD C.R.P.No. 2869 of 2011 ORDER Heard Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.Prakash Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.188 of 2011 in O.S.No.81 of 2011 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Alamur, dated 03-06-2011. 3. The suit is for a permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 5 in respect of the plaint schedule property of an extent of Ac.1.17 guntas in S.No.248/Paiki and Ac.0.20 guntas in S.No.249/AA of Kondair village, claiming the plaintiff to be the absolute owner and possessor of the same. The defendants in their written statement, filed by the 1st defendant on behalf of all of them, contended that in between Sy.No.248 and N.H.7 road, land in Sy.No.295 is situated and thus, the Eastern boundary of the suit schedule property was wrongly shown. 4. In the application for interim injunction filed along with the suit, the trial Court granted an ex parte interim injunction on 30-08-2010 in I.A.No.205 of 2010, which is being extended from time to time. While so, the defendants came up with this application for the appointment of an advocate commissioner for local inspection to demarcate the Sy.No.295 located between the suit land and N.H.7 road with the help of the Mandal Surveyor, Itikyala Mandal. When the application came up for hearing, it was recorded by the trial Court that the other side reported no counter and basing on the grounds raised in the affidavit and the petition, the trial Court considered it appropriate to appoint an advocate-commissioner to note the physical features of the suit property and to demarcate the land in Sy.No.295 located in between the suit land and N.H.7 road with the help of the Mandal Surveyor. 5. The said order is under challenge herein primarily on the ground of the appointment of Commissioner having the effect of delegating the decision on the question of ascertainment of person in possession of the suit property to the Commissioner which question is for the Court to decide on merits on evidence. The revision petitioner also contended that necessary allegations which can persuade the Court for appointment of a Commissioner were not forthcoming and the Commissioner for collection of evidence was appointed as the counsel for the plaintiff misled the Court. 6. During arguments, it has been brought to notice that the plaintiff made a complaint to the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 against his counsel making certain allegations about the conduct of his case in the suit and in I.A.No.188 of 2011. While the contents of his allegations are not germane for the purposes of this civil revision petition, the fact remains that the primary complaint of the plaintiff is that he would have contested the application by filing a counter or counter affidavit and the application would have been decided on merits, but for his counsel misleading him. Irrespective of the truth or otherwise of the allegations made by the plaintiff against the counsel, if he was denied an opportunity to file his pleadings opposing the request for appointment of an Advocate-Commissioner and to have a hearing on merits, the same requires to be corrected while exercising the revisional jurisdiction. 7. As the trial Court has to again go into the merits of the case in such an event, no expression of opinion is being made herein on the justification or otherwise for the appointment of an advocate Commissioner nor about the applicability of the decisions reported in Yenugonda Bal Reddy Vs. Manemma and Others[1] and S.Kiran Kumar Vs. Chief Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Jubilee Hills Branch, Hyderabad and others[2], referred to by the learned counsel Sri Ravishankar Jandhyala as being against the appointment of an advocate-commissioner under the circumstances as herein. 8. Therefore, the order dated 03-06-2011 in I.A.No.188 of 2011 in O.S.No.81 of 2010 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Alamuru, is set aside and the interlocutory application is remitted back to the trial Court for determination on merits in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties after giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to file his counter or counter affidavit to this application. It is made clear that neither this order nor the order of the trial Court in I.A.No.188 of 2011 shall influence the determination of the petition under Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961 said to have been filed by the plaintiff against his counsel before the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh. The trial Court may not proceed with the final determination of I.A.No.205 of 2010 for an interim injunction till the determination of I.A.No.188 of 2011, on merits. 9. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered accordingly without costs. _____________________ 27th August 2011 kvr [1] 2011 (3) A.L.T. 232 [2] 1998 (3) A.L.T 475