HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.626 OF 2010 DATE:26-02-2010 BETWEEN: Mukkapati Subbalakshmi & Another …Petitioners AND Jasthivenkata Rama Chandra Rao & Others. …Respondents THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A. GOPAL REDDY C.R.P. No.626 OF 2010 ORDER: This revision under Article 227 of Constitution of India is filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs assailing the correctness of the order, dated 9.12.2009 passed by I Additional Junior Civil Judge, Rajahmundry dismissing I.A.No.1115 of 2009 in O.S.No.864 of 2005 filed for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to measure the properties of both the parties. The petitioners-plaintiffs who instituted the suit initially for permanent injunction, by filing I.A.No.287 of 2007 got amended the plaint for the relief of declaration and also for possession of the plaint schedule property in occupation of the respondents- defendants. In the said suit, the respondents-defendants filed I.A.No.1231 of 2005 for appointment of an advocate-commissioner to note down the physical features of the plaint schedule property, in which, one K.Kalyana Chakravarthy was appointed as commissioner, who inspected the plaint schedule property and executed the warrant and filed his report on 8.8.2006 and though the matter was posted for objections, if any, by both the parties, no objections were filed and therefore, the I.A. was closed. Later, after the suit was amended as per the orders in I.A.No.287 of 2007, petitioners-plaintiffs filed I.A.No.490 of 2008 for appointment of an advocate-commissioner for the very same purpose, and that the said I.A. was allowed and one Karunakara Raju was appointed as commissioner, who in turn, filed a memo returning the warrant stating that both the parties are not cooperating and therefore, he is unable to execute the warrant as entrusted by the Court. Basing on that report, the said I.A. was dismissed on 9.3.2009. Again, the petitioners-plaintiffs filed another application for appointment of an advocate-commissioner, in which one K.Hanumantha Rao was appointed as commissioner to localize the plaint schedule property. But, again, the said commissioner returned the warrant stating that though he served notices for execution of the warrant, both parties did not cooperate to execute the warrant. Accordingly, the said application was also dismissed. The petitioners again filed the impugned I.A. for the very same relief. The lower Court rightly dismissed the impugned I.A. holding that though an advocate-commissioner was appointed earlier in I.A.No.1231 of 2005, who also filed a report, no objections were filed as per the order of the Court on 20.11.2006 and therefore, the petition was closed and even after that, to show some indulgence, twice, the similar applications filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs were allowed by appointing the commissioner to measure the plaint schedule property, but the petitioners-plaintiffs failed to avail the opportunity. Considering the earlier events, it appears that the impugned I.A is filed only to protract the litigation. Hence, I do not see any illegality or infirmity with the impugned order warranting interference by this Court. The revision fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ A. GOPAL REDDY, J. FEBRUARY 26, 2010 Tsr.