THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P.No.5873 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioners filed O.S.No.740 of 2004 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Nandyal against the respondents for a declaration to the effect that the channels shown in the plaint plan pertaining to the land in Sy.Nos.142 and 143 Pesarvai Village of Gadivemula Mandal, Kurnool District are illegal and not of any utility. They have also sought for a mandatory injunction for demolition of the same. Permanent injunction was sought against the respondents from digging new channels across the plaint schedule property. They pleaded that the channels shown in the plaint plan are almost non- existent, and the respondents are making efforts to dig new channels. The respondents, on the other hand, opposed the suit by stating that the petitioners made efforts to demolish the channels, causing hardship to the farmers in the village. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. The trial of the suit commenced. On behalf of the petitioners, the President of the Water Users’ Association of the concerned area was examined as PW-2. He was also cross-examined to a certain extent. The petitioners filed I.A.No.1211 of 2010 with a prayer to appoint an Advocate-Commissioner, to note down the existence of channels, not only in Sy.Nos.142 and 143, but also in other survey numbers, such as, 139 to 141, 161, and 176 to 178. The respondents opposed the application. The trial Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 18-11-2010. The same is challenged in this revision. The provocation for the petitioners to file I.A.No.1211 of 2010 is the dispute raised by the respondents about Ex.X-1, which was marked through PW-2, the President of the Water Users’ Association. That was nothing, but a carbon copy of a plan, signed by PW-2 himself. Hardly that has any authenticity. Secondly, the suit was in respect of the existence or otherwise of the channels, upon the land in Sy.Nos.142 and 143. The I.A. was filed for noting down the physical features on the land, not only in Sy.Nos.142 and 143, but also the one, in 8 other survey numbers. Irrespective of the permissibility of the application, during the course of trial, the petitioners failed to make out a case, on merits. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the order under revision. The C.R.P is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.31-01-2011. KO