IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE 6th DAY OF AUGUST, TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3365 OF 2010 Between: Central Tobaco Research Institute (CTRI) … Petitioner And A.P.Paper Mills Ltd., … Respondent This Court made the following: HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3365 OF 2010 ORDER: - This revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner/plaintiff for revising the order dated 02.03.2010, passed by the Principal District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajahmundry in I.A.No.407 of 2009 in O.S.No.69 of 2006. Petitioner/plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of the damages estimated under the various heads namely the value of the super structure; loss of usage of the land and the yield for three years; maintenance of watch and ward for three years and on the head of expenditure, power (electricity), maintenance etc., for three years prior to the institution of the suit, in which the impugned I.A. is filed for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features of the building; to know the damage caused to the building; for obtaining observations with the assistance of Senior Environmental Engineer, A.P.Pollution Board, Vijayawada and to take the photos and videos of the plaint schedule property to the defendant’s Mills to the extent necessary to assess the present circumstances regarding land, chemical, water seepage etc The trial Court rightly dismissed the I.A. holding that the petitioner factory was shifted from that place in the year 1982 on the ground of the pollution caused by the defendant and the necessary evidence was already adduced with regard to the compelling circumstances for which the petitioner factory was shifted and the loss sustained. Therefore, the Advocate Commissioner cannot be appointed for gathering the necessary evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the value of the land is deteriorated, therefore, it necessitated the petitioner to file the impugned I.A. When the suit claim itself is under various heads as aforementioned, the subsequent deterioration of the value of the land, cannot be a subject matter of the suit for which purpose the appointment of the Commissioner has been sought for. In view of the same, no infirmity is discernable with the order passed by the trial court, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. No costs. _______________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J 6th August 2010 lmv