THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO :1264 of 2009 ORDER: The present revision petition is filed by the petitioners against the order passed in I.A.No:864 of 2008 in O.S.No:1 of 2005 on 20.1.2009 by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam. The petitioners are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. The status of the parties will hereinafter be referred to as arrayed before the Court below. The defendants have filed I.A.864 of 2008 before the Court below under order 26 rule 9 C.P.C to appoint an advocate commissioner so as to ascertain the exact survey number in which plaint schedule property is situated i.e., whether it is situated in S.No:147/5C or 147/5A with the assistance of the Mandal surveyor of Gajuwaka Tahsildar office. The Court below having observed that in the instant case, there is no ambiguity to ascertain the exact survey number 147/5C which is shown in the plaint schedule property and therefore, the question of appointment of an advocate commissioner does not arise, dismissed the application. Having aggrieved by the same, the present revision is preferred by the defendants. Heard the learned counsel and perused the entire material available on record. Before going into the merits of the case, it is pertinent to note that according to the plaint schedule filed along with the plaint by the plaintiff, the schedule property is situated in S.No:147/5C. However, according to the plaintiff, the correct survey number, in which schedule property is situated, is S.No:147/5C, but in the sale deed, it was wrongly mentioned as S.No:141/11. On the other hand, it is the case of the defendants that though the plaint schedule property is shown in S.No:147/5C, but as per its boundaries, the schedule property is situated in S.No:147/5A, but not S.No:147/5C. The material on record also goes to show that the 2nd defendant has filed a suit in O.S.No:506 of 2004 on the file of the learned Junior Civil Judge, Gajuwaka in respect of the schedule property in S.No:147/4A and 147/5A and the same is pending. If that being the case, the question as to whether schedule property is situated in S.No:147/5C according to the plaintiff and whether as per the boundaries, the same is situated in S.No:147/5A according to the defendants, is a matter to be adjudicated only after a full fledged trial, but not by way of appointment of a commissioner at this stage of the proceedings. In this regard, the learned counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of his Court reported in MOHAMMED MAHMOOD VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL [1]. On the controversy as to the boundary dispute and the identity of the private land and the adjacent government land, the appointment of the advocate commissioner has been considered in the above decision. Therefore, I am of the view that the factual matrix of the case in the above case is quite different and distinct to that of the case on hand and as such, the above decision cannot be made applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In this view of the matter and in view of the reasons in the foregoing paragraph, I have no hesitation to hold that the reasoning assigned by the Court below while dismissing the claim of the defendants for appointment of an advocate commissioner, is just and proper and therefore, the order impugned herein does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Hence, this revision is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed. No costs. ___________________________ Justice Ghulam Mohammed Dated: 7.8.2009 Gurc. THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO:1264 OF 2009 07.08.2009 [1] 2008-ALD –5- 668